Forum Post: public funding of campaigns
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 8:10 a.m. EST by jelohman
(18)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Only public funding of campaigns will fix our system, and it will get politicians voting for the taxpayers. See http://fairelectionsnow.org/about-bill
Jack Lohman http://MoneyedPoliticians.net
Campaign finance REFORM will probably never live up to our satisfaction. What we need, in my opinion, is Campaign Finance ERADICATION. What I mean by this is this: What if we tried to remove financing from elections altogether? Make a law: No public, private or personal finances can help promote one candidate over another. The goal: Limit corporate influence via lobbyists and allow anyone to run for office regardless of socioeconomic status, education, occupation, race, gender, religion or lack of religion.
There would have to be certain qualifications one would need to meet in order to qualify. This would limit the number of people who run for election, but I assume that there would still be a substantial amount of candidates. However, this number ceases to be a problem if the stance that each person takes can be clearly illustrated and available to everyone. Computer programs can easily sort candidates by criteria. Let's say for example we only want a pro-life candidate. If all candidates were required to answer yes, no or maybe, then you simply put a check mark next to that criteria. The more you select, the more that are filtered out, and you would end up only looking at the candidates that match closest to your ideals. Each candidate could sign up for a free page linked to this proposed publically funded site (like signing up for a free email address) and would get a certain amount of space to explain why they answered the way they did. This idea could be improved and expanded upon, but you get the idea. What is also cool about this idea, is it gives us a more concrete way of holding our candidates accountable to what they say.
The end result is clear, we don't want money/power corrupting our democratic process and making it unfair by giving certain candidates more publicity than others. However, we can't restrict the media from doing whatever their wealthy owners want them to do because of freedom of speech. We also can't prevent powerful unions from threatening their employees and forcing them to get out on the street and hold signs for certain candidates. This would all require a limitation to the freedom of speech (and we don't want to start taking away rights from anyone). I am open to ideas or suggestions. But I have some ideas that can help somewhat: Make a law that says that it is illegal for a person in a position of power within any corporation or union to instruct, put pressure upon or suggest how their constituents should vote. Also, since we can't restrict media tycoons from controlling what we see, we need to somehow increase their competition. We need some media (on TV) that balances what they say, so the American Public isn't being spoon-fed what the 1% want us to do.
Also, another, semi-related topic. No more career politicians! Limits for terms, and limits on # of years someone can be in public office, period! I don't care how qualified someone is or how much experience they have, after a certain amount of time, they will spoil. We need constant cycling of new blood. There also has to be put into place some checks and balances which prevent conflicts of interest. For example, someone who comes from a business that is regulated by the FDA shouldn't be elected into a position within the FDA (regardless of whether they personally still hold stock in the company or not). There are still loopholes to these ideas, but that's why I would like to meet with someone else who is interested in this topic, to try to iron out those details. If you are interested, email me: recoveryjunkie83@gmail.com.
Yes, but computer programs can also be written in a biased way. I'd not make this any more complicated than it need be.
See http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2011/09/23/cleaning-up-the-political-system/
This bill tends to empower establishes politicians too much. It just multiplies small private donations.
What i would rather do is have 100% public funding. Select voters at ransomed to allocate and distribute funds.
That wouldean candidates would meed to. N
sign the petition www.getmoneyout.com, a constitutional amendment to get money and it's power out of our government and change that horrible supreme court decision Citizens United. Corporations and Banks are Not people. Banks do not manufacture anything but more money for the 1% and depress the 99%
sign the petition www.getmoneyout.com, a constitutional amendment to get money and it's power out of our government and change that horrible supreme court decision Citizens United. Corporations and Banks are Not people. Banks do not manufacture anything but more money for the 1% and depress the 99%
Agreed.
Also check out: http://www.getmoneyout.com/
Excellent site. Is this the one Ratigan is involved with? Who runs it?
You have something better than public funding. It's called a vote. If people use it next month and vote out every incumbent then democracy will have a voice.
ok, lets say that happens. Then a new guy gets in. The BIG money starts flowing to him now. And when the BIG money gets a hold of him it will not let him go. Then he becomes corrupted by the BIG money. And so it goes, on and on, like that. This does NOT solve the root cause of the problem. It only perpetuates it with an every flowing river of money from the 1% of the population who is wealthy enough to buy their representation in government.
The root cause of the problem is money in the political system. We have to get the money out through publicly funded elections.
I understand the thought of publicly funded elections. However, voting out every incumbent can be done in just a few short weeks from now. Those who are not up for reelection will be motivated to work on ideas that are good for all people in the democratic process and not just the minority with the wealth. Block voting is the most powerful tool in our current political system. It's used on a small scale with successful results.
There's nothing wrong with doing that. However the underlying problem still remains and must be solved with Election Reform. Or the cycle begins again.
The good thing about voting out incumbents is that it rattles every level of government. Our leaders in Washington DC know that incumbency is rarely lost during reelection campaigns. Incumbency allows our political leaders the comfort to view from a distance the voices on Wall Street and around the world. They know that corporate money will flow into their pockets as long as they tow the party line. Voting out every incumbent and making election reform one of the top priorities go hand in hand to bringing change to our system. Even if there was a mass voter registration drive it would create a worldwide buzz.
As the message of Election Reform gets louder from this protest, it will signal to the government to make that change, or risk losing their re-election.
I could agree. But remember that the most honest newbie faces a critical question once he is elected, and that's getting re-elected which requires money! So you have to let the Newbies know that only turning down money will ensure their re-election.
Too simple. Both the D's and R's are corrupt. Who can we vote for?
It's not that you vote for someone. It's that you vote as a block. First, you block vote and target every incumbent. If every incumbent in Washington DC thought that they were in danger of a block vote, the status quo of how Washington politics works would change.
For that reason the "Occupy" effort is so critical, though I'd like to see them get behind just one cause: clean government. But does your "block" get behind the D's or R's? Both are corrupt.
I still believe that many politicians are not corrupt but that the system is corrupted by corporate interests and that the outcome is seldom beneficial to anyone else outside of the corporate world. I would not "block" vote against a party or in support of a party. I would "block" vote against all incumbents and then based on the outcome of this democratic process chose the next path of how block voting would be the most beneficial in minimizing corporate influence. If that means targeting just one political party or supporting a third party then so be it.
YES, we need to do SOMETHING that separates $$ from D.C.
But the devil in the details... like who would qualifies for public funding?
I'd much rather see XYZ get's the same amount of $ and Press, and have them debate it out... the lobbyist, and wall st. should stay away from DC as much as possible...
but then theirs Big Media to worry about... Fox news had a huge hand to play in the 2000 prez election...
Who qualifies? The candidates that get the most signatures from voters.
but how much is enough signatures? maybe we can have tiers... the more sigs you get the more $$ you get or something...
The amount is determined by the office, but it is fair and achievable. Cigs is a violation of law and generates jail time.
The protesters have a huge momentum now. Start your own political party called the "Party of US" (Party of the United States). If you can demonstrate your unity, then unify behind some issues, and the cause for which you are fighting. You have the power of the vote! Use it. Get all the protesters to vote to support some issues, and then occupy Washington DC to show the rest of America that you have the votes to support those issues.
I'd like to see Sanders in an independent run.
Increase the ability of politicians to give themselves taxpayer money directly? Yes that will obviously fix our problems...
No that opens the field to any and all who wish to run for office, it breaks the strangle hold of the two party system. So yes short sighted one, it will obviously fix our problems
There are only two types of money, public and private. Whose money should we use? Or better, how are you liking our current private money system? See http://www.wicleanelections.org/opposing-arguments.html
It goes deeper then just funding political campaigns with tax payer dollars but it's something that must be done. Our politicians should not be for sale and unless we address that problem, nothing the Occupy movement accomplishes will mean anything. Every thing will just be undone if we allow the money to flow into Washington.
How about something like this? http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx
Indeed it does go deeper. See http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2011/09/23/cleaning-up-the-political-system/
I like the message on that website. It doesn't go far enough though. You have to remove lobbyists and special interest groups. They need to be restricted from contacting and speaking with our politicians outside of open public forums. Also, you can not allow any donations of any kind. It only opens the door to corruption. Some one will find a loophole that will allow large sums of money to be donated.
Increase the ability of politicians to give themselves taxpayer money directly?
Yes that will obviously fix our problems...
There would be a system in place to control and determine how the money gets distributed. They wouldn't just be able to write themselves checks freely. See the Fair Elections Now Act. I'm not sure this has all the right details, but this would be good place to start.
Yes and so the thing that restricts them is the very thing they get to change by voting - legislation.
...really?
I suppose that is possible. But that would put them at risk in the next election. Once 99% of the population has their fair and equal representation in government again, it would be very difficult for Congress to change or compromise the Election Reform legislation without risk to their own re-election.
They do it early in the term and its forgotten in 18 months. Happens all the time. People are mostly asleep and as soon as the economy gets better those who are awake now will start to drift back into comfy sleep of "I can go to the bar whenever I want and I can get a loan for a new car".
You'll almost never get 99% of any group larger than 5 to agree on anything. Right now the closest I think we can come is "no corporate bailouts and welfare".
I think this is much bigger than corp bailouts and welfare.
I sincerely believe that 99% can agree that our democracy needs to be fixed. It might be slow going to get that message across. Slow, yes; impossible, no.
If we can achieve Election Reform, it will be up to the 99% to hold that legisilation sacred!! As sacred as our Constitution!! Because Election Reform is all about our very democracy.
It would be nice but remember the true vanguard of a free people is an informed and interested people.
We don't have that so without that any law we get put in place temporarily will be changed when enough people start to not care enough to take action...which will be shortly.
I guess I have more faith in people. I know people can sometimes get distracted easily. But let's dare to dream big! We have nothing to lose! Because what we fight for is already gone. And people DO care enough to take action. That is why we are here now! It's just been too long in coming. But we're here now! That is what matters. Great things have happened before when this country has dreamed big. It can happen again!
We need to have faith in eachother. 1% has the wealth, but the 99% has eachother. And that is worth more than all the money in the world. We have the majority. We can make the change.
They are already doing that with their cash subsidies to their corporate contributors.
So we should make it easier for them?
Look, if that made it "easier" they would have passed it years ago. But it reduces their re-election odds from 95% to 70%, thus the incumbents love the current system. That's why 99%ers should hate it.
Yep the present campaign finance system is system of legalized graft and corruption that needs to be replaced by public funding of elections, along with strict controls on lobbyist, where all lobbying with elected representatives is recorded for public view.
Lobbying in itself is not bad; it educates. Lobbying with cash in hand must be stopped. It bribes.
you are correct lobbying in it self is not bad and in fact is necessary, but it needs to be strictly controlled in how it is done and it needs to be documented and recorded for the public to view
Public funding for campaigns is out of the question, government has to much debt already! The one pot for each party to be divide equally is the best solution. Individual and private donations are accepted, no limit on the amount. This way each candidate gets a level playing field, and no special interest deals are granted.
Public funding of campaigns would cost $5 per taxpayer per year. The current system, which would be eliminated, costs $3000 per taxpayer in government giveaways. Do the math.
$3000 per tax payer I don't think so! Where do you get that number from a tea party speech of some sort? Contributing to election campaigns should be optional, most people can't afford a nickel, besides those who run are mostly millionaires if not billionaires. forking out more taxpayer money to them is just crazy they are already robbing us blind!
I don't have a problem with private campaign funding as long as lobbyists & lobbying is removed from the mix. Private funding could be pooled for each party and each candidate could be given an equal share as it is contributed. But then again why would big corporations want to contribute if they weren't getting any kind of advantage by it?
So the Koch Brothers and George Soros can continue buying political votes (because they are NOT lobbyists!)?
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_7e8aa25a-3ec0-11e0-9923-001cc4c03286.html