Political campaign finance reform Please

[turbo]

Political campaign finance reform... Please!

It is time to take big money out of politics. If I want to give $5 or $10 to a politician to help with their campaign, that should be just fine. If XYZ Corp wants to dump tens of thousands of dollars, that should NOT be allowed. Corporations are not citizens and they are not voters. Huge corporate donations are not "free speech", but bribery.

It is time that We The People got our influence back. Political campaigns should not be waged in ad-wars as they are today. If you are smart enough to hold public office, you should be smart enough to engage in public debates with your opponent(s) and hold your own. I don't care who has more money to throw around. I do care if you have more than a couple of brain-cells to rub together.

 

[Galteeth]

What about an individual who donates money he makes from his large business?

 

[cobalt124]

There's always talk in the U.K. about banning large donations, capping the amount that can be spent on election campaigns and even letting the taxpayer fund the whole thing, which doesn't seem to be such a bad idea to me. You always need to question the motives of any large donation from whatever source, as it is never going to be altruistic, so a donation cap would be more effective than a "corporation ban". At least then the government of the day would be more accountable to the people who vote them in rather than the media tycoons, corporations and so on, and may listen to them more of the time, instead of doing it grudgingly before an election. I suspect this issue is much worse in the U.S. than it is here, though.

 

[Galteeth]

There's always talk in the U.K. about banning large donations, capping the amount that can be spent on election campaigns and even letting the taxpayer fund the whole thing, which doesn't seem to be such a bad idea to me. You always need to question the motives of any large donation from whatever source, as it is never going to be altruistic, so a donation cap would be more effective than a "corporation ban". At least then the government of the day would be more accountable to the people who vote them in rather than the media tycoons, corporations and so on, and may listen to them more of the time, instead of doing it grudgingly before an election. I suspect this issue is much worse in the U.S. than it is here, though.

The obvious question then is, where does the funding come from? Would candidates be allowed to spend their own money? What counts as a "donation"? There are many ways to support a candidate or get their name out that don't include direct campaign contributions. And this is where you run into the issue of free speech. I agree with the motivation, but the reality is that campaign finance reform has actually empowered established candidates by creating burdensome regulations that well connected candidates are better equiped to comply with. For example, when working as a precinct captain for Ron Paul's campaign, the official campaign was very limited in how they could communicate with the grassroots. This lead to a few of the precinct captains being people who might not have represented the campaign, as well as a very hastily organized infrastructure that would have benefited from Paul's war chest.
John Stossel did an interesting piece on campaign finance reform.

 

[cobalt124]

Yes, it's a potential minefield. I take the point on burdensome regulations it would have to be straightforward and fair. How about only receiving donations from party members that are capped. This would be detrimental to minority parties with fewer members. Or ban donations altogether and allocate the same amount of taxpayers money to each party to run an election campaign. This has the advantage of increased accountability to the people and the disadvantage of favouring minority (extreme) parties. Then you are looking at walking into the minefield and allocating money based of some criteria. That cannot be easy. At least with these options the debate is between the parties and the people and does not involve external interested parties.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What about Ben and Jerry's? They donate, but only to "good" political causes.

What about unions?

What about individuals pooling their resources to make a bigger impact? If I find 9 like-minded people who want to save the skeets, why can't we write one check from the Save the Skeets Foundation?

 

[fss]

There's no reason to forbid companies from making large donations to political candidates' campaigns. Money only goes so far in terms of ads during an election; most voters have already made up their mind who they are going to vote for in the first place. Fundraising and spending statistics during elections are fairly meaningless.

Lobbyists are the real problem.

 

[Al68]

It is time to take big money out of politics. If I want to give $5 or $10 to a politician to help with their campaign, that should be just fine. If XYZ Corp wants to dump tens of thousands of dollars, that should NOT be allowed. Corporations are not citizens and they are not voters. Huge corporate donations are not "free speech", but bribery.

It is time that We The People got our influence back. Political campaigns should not be waged in ad-wars as they are today. If you are smart enough to hold public office, you should be smart enough to engage in public debates with your opponent(s) and hold your own. I don't care who has more money to throw around. I do care if you have more than a couple of brain-cells to rub together.

Give power-hungry incumbent politicians even more power to control and restrict the campaigns of the people who are trying to replace them? Yeah, that's not corrupt at all! :uhh:

 

[Proton Soup]

Lobbyists are the real problem.

yes, especially those who lobby on the behalf of foreign governments or foreign corporations.

 

[cobalt124]

Vanadium 50:

"What about Ben and Jerry's? They donate, but only to "good" political causes.

What about unions?

What about individuals pooling their resources to make a bigger impact? If I find 9 like-minded people who want to save the skeets, why can't we write one check from the Save the Skeets Foundation?"

Ben and Jerrys would not be allowed to donate for specific causes. Unions are an organization and would not be allowed to donate for the same reasons that a corporation would not. I would make a distinction between financing Save the Skeets and financing an electoral platform, PART of that platform being Save the Skeets, the former would be Ok, the latter not so. The same applies to the Ben and Jerrys example.

The prize of having an election that was fairly financed and accountable to the people would make these choices worthwhile.



fss:

"There's no reason to forbid companies from making large donations to political candidates' campaigns. Money only goes so far in terms of ads during an election; most voters have already made up their mind who they are going to vote for in the first place. Fundraising and spending statistics during elections are fairly meaningless.".

Then surely they don't need the money so we should not allow them to have it. I suspect though that the party with the best advertising campaign will gain great advantage otherwise why throw all the money at it.



Al68:

"Give power-hungry incumbent politicians even more power to control and restrict the campaigns of the people who are trying to replace them? Yeah, that's not corrupt at all!"

Take the power away from the power-hungry incumbent politicians and give it to the taxpayer.

 

[WhoWee]

What about Ben and Jerry's? They donate, but only to "good" political causes.

What about unions?

What about individuals pooling their resources to make a bigger impact? If I find 9 like-minded people who want to save the skeets, why can't we write one check from the Save the Skeets Foundation?

Any discussion of reform must include an analysis of Government unions. First, why do Government workers need a union? That aside, what other employer allows it's employees to contribute money to elect their bosses - and people who decide their wages and benefits?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23labor.html
"For the first time in American history, a majority of union members are government workers rather than private-sector employees, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced on Friday.

In its annual report on union membership, the bureau undercut the longstanding notion that union members are overwhelmingly blue-collar factory workers. It found that membership fell so fast in the private sector in 2009 that the 7.9 million unionized public-sector workers easily outnumbered those in the private sector, where labor’s ranks shrank to 7.4 million, from 8.2 million in 2008.

“There has been steady growth among union members in the public sector, but I’m a little bit shocked to see that the lines have actually crossed,” said Randel K. Johnson, senior vice president for labor at the United States Chamber of Commerce.

According to the labor bureau, 7.2 percent of private-sector workers were union members last year, down from 7.6 percent the previous year. That, labor historians said, was the lowest percentage of private-sector workers in unions since 1900.

Among government workers, union membership grew to 37.4 percent last year, from 36.8 percent in 2008."

 

[cobalt124]

...First, why do Government workers need a union?...

For the same reasons that any workers need a union. To protect their rights.

 

[cobalt124]

...That aside, what other employer allows it's employees to contribute money to elect their bosses - and people who decide their wages and benefits?...

I don't understand this. Is this something that happens in the U.S?

 

[WhoWee]

I don't understand this. Is this something that happens in the U.S?

Government employee unions help elect candidates friendly to them.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e.../2010/10/31/the_big_dog_in_campaign_spending/

"In reality, the biggest outside spender is the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which is pumping almost $88 million into TV commercials, phone banks, and mailings to promote Democratic candidates.

“We’re spending big,’’ AFSCME President Gerald McEntee boasted to The Wall Street Journal. “And we’re damn happy it’s big. And our members are damn happy it’s big — it’s their money.’’

AFSCME isn’t the only public-sector union “spending big’’ to influence the vote on Nov. 2. So is the National Education Association and the Service Employees International Union, respectively the nation’s largest and fastest-growing unions. Together, the three government-employee unions will have spent nearly $172 million campaigning for Democrats in the course of this election cycle. That outstrips by more than $30 million what the Chamber of Commerce and the Rove network combined are pouring into the 2010 campaign."

 

[cobalt124]

Thanks, I've read the link. Hopefully, I didn't give you the impression I was advocating this as it is just another vested interest using financial muscle to its own advantage. I'm saying that the money to finance elections should be independent of any vested interest, so (in the U.K.), we pay taxes for health, education, local amenities and so on, we should also pay tax for elections, and that would remove vested interests from the picture. I'm not advocating a particular method for doing this, I'm highlighting options that remove all the big money from elections, and looking at the pros and cons, and letting the taxpayer foot the bill would be one option.

 

[WhoWee]

Thanks, I've read the link. Hopefully, I didn't give you the impression I was advocating this as it is just another vested interest using financial muscle to its own advantage. I'm saying that the money to finance elections should be independent of any vested interest, so (in the U.K.), we pay taxes for health, education, local amenities and so on, we should also pay tax for elections, and that would remove vested interests from the picture. I'm not advocating a particular method for doing this, I'm highlighting options that remove all the big money from elections, and looking at the pros and cons, and letting the taxpayer foot the bill would be one option.

The truth is that I don't know anyone that doesn't want campaign finance reform of some type. Accordingly, the $5 to $10 contribution per individual per candidate SOUNDS very good. Unfortunately, as soon as you allow any exceptions to that rule - an advantage is created.

As for union members - I have no problem if they contribute personally - candidate by candidate - that would be terrific.

Last, to expand on your idea of letting taxpayers foot the bill for elections - I think only taxpayers should be permitted to vote. Specifically, only people who paid a net amount of $1.00 or more should be permitted to cast a vote.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO - we should make voting a priority for all military personnel - and suspend all voting rights for prisoners. Again, prisoners are not a productive part of our system. The are a drain of resources and should not have a say in how taxpayer funds are allocated.

 

[cobalt124]

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Galteeth]

IMO - we should make voting a priority for all military personnel - and suspend all voting rights for prisoners. Again, prisoners are not a productive part of our system. The are a drain of resources and should not have a say in how taxpayer funds are allocated.

Do you refer only to people who are actively in prison or those who were formerly in prison as well?

 

[cobalt124]

Back to the original subject - would it be possible to get a majority of people to vote for real reform (electoral financing and taxation)?

I suspect this would be very difficult to achieve. Plenty of people will say they want it, but not enough would want to make the necessary sacrifice (stump up money) to implement it.

Worse, since the SCOTUS ruled that corporations and un-named groups can dump unlimited money into political campaigns as "free speech"

That's plain wrong, and needs overturning. Its effect reminds me of the union block vote at the Trades Union Congress and corporate voting at shareholders annual meetings. All three are effective methods of taking the power away from the people each is supposed to represent.

 

[WhoWee]

Do you refer only to people who are actively in prison or those who were formerly in prison as well?

I am referring to people serving time in prison - set a time (90 days or more?).
It's a real issue. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/05/felons-in-prison-should-b_n_412593.html

I'm also suggesting an income tax test - only people paying at least $1.00 in federal income taxes should have the right to vote - that is decide how tax dollars are allocated. People who did not contribute - should not be included in the decision to spend - it's about common sense...not rights.

 

[cobalt124]

Maybe it should be about rights, and people should have a right to vote, irrespective of whether they pay tax, and that vote should not be diminished by anyone making large contributions. I feel money should be totally divorced from the process across the board, and anyone in prison at the time should not get a vote.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe it should be about rights, and people should have a right to vote, irrespective of whether they pay tax

Why? If they are not paying taxes - they are more than likely receiving tax dollars. Why should they have a voice in how much they will receive?

 

[cobalt124]

Yes, I see what you are saying. What I'm saying is that forbidding non-taxpayers a vote is divisive and then the voting taxpayer will insist on exercising its power over the rest, which seems a similar situation to the one the OP wishes to avoid. What would be preferable IMO would be a means tested tax system that everyone contributes to and so everyone has a legitimate vote. I realize I didn't quite say that previously. I think you have to take the money out of the process completely. I see everybody paying a fair and proportionate amount of tax as a way of achieving that. The system as is looks to me to be open to abuse.

I may be wrong but I get the impression that all taxes and rebates for whatever purpose are being lumped together and called tax, and if that is the case, all it could do is muddy the waters and widen the opportunities for abuse.

 

[CAC1001]

For the same reasons that any workers need a union. To protect their rights.

Public-sector unions can have a perverse set of incentives compared with private-sector unions. Old-style Democrats such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the NYC mayor Fiorello LaGuardia were against public-sector unions; they were only for private-sector unions.

Public unions can be a danger in one respect because if they go on strike, they can literally shut down the city/state/country.

That is why when JFK signed the legislation allowing public-sector workers to unionize, he exempted major government agencies like the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc...the military also is not unionized.

The other problem is financial: A private-sector union always knows that they have to be careful because if they demand too much, they will kill the company, and if the company dies, so does the union. The management also know this (an exception could be GMC, where back in the 60s, when the management made some very lavish promises to the unions, GM was an incredibly dominant company, so management was a bit careless, and now that GM got ino trouble, the government came to its aid).

A public-sector union, on the other hand, knows that they can milk the government for as much as possible because the government is not a business; it taxes, and in the end, it can always raise taxes if it runs short of money (which the politicians recognize); the problem, as they are finding out now, is that this has a limit too.

A public-sector union will seek to increase the size of the government because this means more government workers, which means more union members, which means more union dues, more money, more clout and influence, etc...and it perverts the politicians, who end up solely in their pocket. It also means money that should go to things like infrastructure maintenance can end up going to the unions.

In seeking to increase government spending via increased wages, benefits, and so forth, along with increasing the size of government to gain more workers, they are also robbing the public treasury in the process.

With a private-sector union, the workers one could argue are taking wealth that belongs to the shareholders, but it's still wealth those workers helped to create. With a public-sector union, they are taking wealth that was paid into the treasury via taxes from the private-sector workers who create wealth.

 

[cobalt124]

CAC1001 - another example of a group leveraging for power at the expense of individuals (they are supposedly representing). The whole system is adversarial and confrontational and the one with the most money and power wins. No one is going to back down out of fear of their "enemies". The whole thing seems to be based on fear. So the unions should protect their workers rights, wage negotiations, working conditions, day to day stuff, and include their membership in the process, and nothing else. And in return the employer is supposed to be responsible and not make everyone feel they have an axe over their heads every day, and stop being profit obsessed.

 

[Galteeth]

Why? If they are not paying taxes - they are more than likely receiving tax dollars. Why should they have a voice in how much they will receive?

Because at least in theory there is more to government then just allocating money.

 

[WhoWee]

CAC1001 - another example of a group leveraging for power at the expense of individuals (they are supposedly representing). The whole system is adversarial and confrontational and the one with the most money and power wins. No one is going to back down out of fear of their "enemies". The whole thing seems to be based on fear. So the unions should protect their workers rights, wage negotiations, working conditions, day to day stuff, and include their membership in the process, and nothing else. And in return the employer is supposed to be responsible and not make everyone feel they have an axe over their heads every day, and stop being profit obsessed.

The entire argument of Government workers needing protection from their employer is - incorrect.

 

[cobalt124]

Yes, I can see it's different. Over here the public sector doesn't have that much power, and does have to fight for rights. I do think the U.S. system is far too confrontational.

 

[mugaliens]

The entire argument of Government workers needing protection from their employer is - incorrect.

A hundred thousand OEF/OIF vets would contend otherwise.

 

[WhoWee]

A hundred thousand OEF/OIF vets would contend otherwise.

It's my contention that Government union workers are over-compensated.

Are you suggesting that miliary "workers" need to be unionized as well?

I have an idea, why not cut the salary and benefit packages of the 2 million (approx) civilian Government workers by 40% and give 1/4 of this clawback to the Veterans? That would be change I can believe in - no need to unionize soldiers.