Page 1 of 1 pages
Public financing of elections is something that is long overdue. Entire books can be written about the corrupting influence of money and the political advantages that money buys.
Posted by lams712 on Apr 25, 2007 at 8:41 AM
The campaigns are very corrupt but I
don’t see govt financing as the panacea
either. Can see free speech issues arising
here and also it takes an enormous amount
of money to defeat an incumbent. Webb’s
great victory over Allen in neighboring Virginia
would not have been possible without tons of
money. His ads were seen at the time here in
Maryland because he bought time on the DC
stations.
Posted by bostonblackie on Apr 25, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Hi,y’all!
May I offer an option?
Candidates for office should not be allowed to spend in any election cycle, that is to say up to one year prior to the election, more than the sum of one year of the salary that office provides.PERIOD! To give the candidates the exposure they need, they should be allowed a page in the appropriate newspapers to state their positions;a practice done in the town where I live.I know this would hurt certain lower echelon positions, but can anyone actually name all of their city councilmen. Furthermore, does anyone even remember, why they voted for them other than the name sounded nice—which is probably what most people do anyway.
Should an office require media exposure, there may be a televised debate on issues deemed pertinent. This coverage could be provided by local or network stations as is necessary. As well, in the case of a presidential debate, there should be more than the bare three debates now provided. A debate per major issue, one that allows,or forces as the case might be, the candidate to expound upon their views of said issue. Honestly,the 2004 debates were appalling. Poor Georgie Jr. doesn’t work well away from the prompter and speechwriter. That could be an indication of his thought process, don’t you think? I feel closer examination,scrutiny,deconstruction if you will, is needed far more than sloganeering.
Really, when one reaches the core of the matter, why would anyone on either side raise hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that pays only four hundred thousand dollars per annum if there were not many, many strings attached and subsequent favors to repay?
One more thing. If ANY church or religious figure so much as hints at what candidate a churchmember should choose, they should immediately lose their non- taxable status. Tell Pat Robertson to keep his beak firmly shut.
Just some musings.
Ta-Ta!
Posted by Aunty Rightwing on Apr 25, 2007 at 8:22 PM
A random drivers license number lottery should choose all elected officials. One term in any particular office and out you go. No one could do any worse than “professional” politicians and one term is not long enough to be bought by any special interest group. Unbiased, quick, cheap. No more political parties, no more wasted money on elections. Spend the money on education so kids won’t want to be lawyers or politicians.
Posted by texasindependent on Apr 26, 2007 at 9:30 PM
I’d also like to see a series of televised symposia on major national issues, to which ANY presidential candidate is invited, regardless of some presumption of winability, which is now an artificial filter favoring those few who are allowed to join debates among presidential candidates.
That nonsense back in 1992, where Bush the Elder, Clinton the Convex, and the loudmouthed billionaire took part in the debates, was just ludicrous. Why did we need to hear from Ross Perot and not any other contenders? Because he was bucks-up? That was the basis of his presumption of winability, wasn’t it? Whether they have a broad national standing or not, it would be more of a service to democratic ideals to let us also hear from Peace & Freedom, American Independents, the Libertarians, etc etc, if they want to field a candidate. Convene a panel on, say, immigration issues, or maybe the drug war, or the Middle East, whatever, and let us find out what each party’s candidate has to say on the matter. Why not? If their message to the country is not well-received, that’s their own lookout.
I read somewhere that the original “symposia”, back in ancient Greece, included music and drinking along with philosophical conversation. It might be fun to get the candidates a little buzzed before the cameras light up, maybe we’d hear more about what they really think instead of the usual canned responses!
There’s where the value that underlies public financing could also use some application, that of letting the electorate find out the breadth of programs ALL of the contending parties want to put forward. Not just letting them hear it, I mean actually helping them hear it.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 27, 2007 at 12:08 AM
The basic problem here is the Surpreme Court decision. The idea that campaign contributions are a form of free speech is a sick joke. It’s not free speech (in the egalitarian form as intended in the Constitution) when over 90% of the population can’t meaningfully compete to make their finantial vioce heard. On the contrary, by not having the means to make 5 or even 6 figure donations, we are denied our right to speak.
That decision by the Court is helping drive our country into a new fuedal age.
Posted by Strive to be Dust on Apr 27, 2007 at 2:53 AM
Money will never be out of politics. With the current election financing system, at least the public has the right to know who is giving to whom. I recently read a book written in 1946 about American politics. In it the author noted that state legislatures composed of lawyers means that the lawyer can set whatever fees he wants for his clients, much as can consultants. The author argued that respectable pay for legislators would mean that the fee-as-contribution system would be less essential.
In state and local elections, campaign contributions cannot fund living expenses. In so-called clean elections, that means a person who has a job with enough flexibility to campaign or enough of a savings account to live off during a campaign has a distinct advantage over a person who must pay for extra childcare to campaign and lose pay when campaigning because her job is only 9-5 with no flexiblity.
Developers, who already are given great influence with many city officials, find serving in office a boon to their business as they pass laws to exempt new construction from sales taxes and to fund developments with Tax Increment Financing.
I also agree with the comment above that the Supreme Court ruling giving free speech rights to financial contributions is a big problem.
All in all, though, I have seen too many candidates win without much money because they made the effort to run. I also have seen many people with money go nowhere because their messages did not resonate with voters.
Just as with the Help America Vote Act and other “solutions” to voting “problems,” I’m not sure how problematic money in campaigns really is. I’ve heard examples of how reforms work, but when I research the claims, they don’t hold up.
Posted by SillyLeftist on Apr 30, 2007 at 10:57 AM
I’m all for public financing.Two things to remember: 1) The process is voluntary. The hope is that it will be appealing enough to candidates that it will make them want to enroll and that otherwise highly qualified people who have until now refused to run because they don’t wish to submit to the “rat race” aspects of seeking public office will be attracted; 2) individuals can still make contributions to their favored candidates, the max amount to be determined.
Posted by whemmer on May 11, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Public financing of elections is something that is long overdue. Entire books can be written about the corrupting influence of money and the political advantages that money buys.
The campaigns are very corrupt but I
don’t see govt financing as the panacea
either. Can see free speech issues arising
here and also it takes an enormous amount
of money to defeat an incumbent. Webb’s
great victory over Allen in neighboring Virginia
would not have been possible without tons of
money. His ads were seen at the time here in
Maryland because he bought time on the DC
stations.
Hi,y’all!
May I offer an option?
Candidates for office should not be allowed to spend in any election cycle, that is to say up to one year prior to the election, more than the sum of one year of the salary that office provides.PERIOD! To give the candidates the exposure they need, they should be allowed a page in the appropriate newspapers to state their positions;a practice done in the town where I live.I know this would hurt certain lower echelon positions, but can anyone actually name all of their city councilmen. Furthermore, does anyone even remember, why they voted for them other than the name sounded nice—which is probably what most people do anyway.
Should an office require media exposure, there may be a televised debate on issues deemed pertinent. This coverage could be provided by local or network stations as is necessary. As well, in the case of a presidential debate, there should be more than the bare three debates now provided. A debate per major issue, one that allows,or forces as the case might be, the candidate to expound upon their views of said issue. Honestly,the 2004 debates were appalling. Poor Georgie Jr. doesn’t work well away from the prompter and speechwriter. That could be an indication of his thought process, don’t you think? I feel closer examination,scrutiny,deconstruction if you will, is needed far more than sloganeering.
Really, when one reaches the core of the matter, why would anyone on either side raise hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that pays only four hundred thousand dollars per annum if there were not many, many strings attached and subsequent favors to repay?
One more thing. If ANY church or religious figure so much as hints at what candidate a churchmember should choose, they should immediately lose their non- taxable status. Tell Pat Robertson to keep his beak firmly shut.
Just some musings.
Ta-Ta!
A random drivers license number lottery should choose all elected officials. One term in any particular office and out you go. No one could do any worse than “professional” politicians and one term is not long enough to be bought by any special interest group. Unbiased, quick, cheap. No more political parties, no more wasted money on elections. Spend the money on education so kids won’t want to be lawyers or politicians.
I’d also like to see a series of televised symposia on major national issues, to which ANY presidential candidate is invited, regardless of some presumption of winability, which is now an artificial filter favoring those few who are allowed to join debates among presidential candidates.
That nonsense back in 1992, where Bush the Elder, Clinton the Convex, and the loudmouthed billionaire took part in the debates, was just ludicrous. Why did we need to hear from Ross Perot and not any other contenders? Because he was bucks-up? That was the basis of his presumption of winability, wasn’t it? Whether they have a broad national standing or not, it would be more of a service to democratic ideals to let us also hear from Peace & Freedom, American Independents, the Libertarians, etc etc, if they want to field a candidate. Convene a panel on, say, immigration issues, or maybe the drug war, or the Middle East, whatever, and let us find out what each party’s candidate has to say on the matter. Why not? If their message to the country is not well-received, that’s their own lookout.
I read somewhere that the original “symposia”, back in ancient Greece, included music and drinking along with philosophical conversation. It might be fun to get the candidates a little buzzed before the cameras light up, maybe we’d hear more about what they really think instead of the usual canned responses!
There’s where the value that underlies public financing could also use some application, that of letting the electorate find out the breadth of programs ALL of the contending parties want to put forward. Not just letting them hear it, I mean actually helping them hear it.
The basic problem here is the Surpreme Court decision. The idea that campaign contributions are a form of free speech is a sick joke. It’s not free speech (in the egalitarian form as intended in the Constitution) when over 90% of the population can’t meaningfully compete to make their finantial vioce heard. On the contrary, by not having the means to make 5 or even 6 figure donations, we are denied our right to speak.
That decision by the Court is helping drive our country into a new fuedal age.
Money will never be out of politics. With the current election financing system, at least the public has the right to know who is giving to whom. I recently read a book written in 1946 about American politics. In it the author noted that state legislatures composed of lawyers means that the lawyer can set whatever fees he wants for his clients, much as can consultants. The author argued that respectable pay for legislators would mean that the fee-as-contribution system would be less essential.
In state and local elections, campaign contributions cannot fund living expenses. In so-called clean elections, that means a person who has a job with enough flexibility to campaign or enough of a savings account to live off during a campaign has a distinct advantage over a person who must pay for extra childcare to campaign and lose pay when campaigning because her job is only 9-5 with no flexiblity.
Developers, who already are given great influence with many city officials, find serving in office a boon to their business as they pass laws to exempt new construction from sales taxes and to fund developments with Tax Increment Financing.
I also agree with the comment above that the Supreme Court ruling giving free speech rights to financial contributions is a big problem.
All in all, though, I have seen too many candidates win without much money because they made the effort to run. I also have seen many people with money go nowhere because their messages did not resonate with voters.
Just as with the Help America Vote Act and other “solutions” to voting “problems,” I’m not sure how problematic money in campaigns really is. I’ve heard examples of how reforms work, but when I research the claims, they don’t hold up.
I’m all for public financing.Two things to remember: 1) The process is voluntary. The hope is that it will be appealing enough to candidates that it will make them want to enroll and that otherwise highly qualified people who have until now refused to run because they don’t wish to submit to the “rat race” aspects of seeking public office will be attracted; 2) individuals can still make contributions to their favored candidates, the max amount to be determined.
register a new account »Posting Security