Attempting to reloacte the discussion from here and here... One easy step toward getting politicians out of the pockets of the corporations is campaign finance reform. The whole point of the Democratic ideal is that all citizens have an equal voice in government and equal opportunity, allowing presidential campaigns (and now even Sentatorial campaigns) to cost millions of dollars works squarely against those ideals. What I propose to to only allow politicians to take campaign contributions from individuals (no corporate PAC's, no political parties, no funds, no groups at all). An individual can only contribute to a politician who the individual can legally vote for (in other words, not contributions to Senators from other states). An individual's contributions to a politician are limited to no more than the equivalent of one-month's salary at minimum wage per race. (Federal minimum wage for a presidential candidate, state minumum wage for a state level representative and local minimum wage (where applicable r.e. San Francisco) where it is a local race) "Lobbying" is nothing more than legalized bribery and should be stopped. This would have to be begun on a state level via referendum, of course, since national referendums are not allowed. Once enough state representatives have been forced to change that opens the door to multiple parties to get into the Senate and the House - people who will force the same restraints upon the Presidential race. I also think that anyone running for office should be required to completely open his/her private finacial records and keep them that way for the length of service. No one should be allowed to pay a dime out of his/her own pocket towards a campaign - strictly supporter donations. Anyone holding public office should be required to sell any stocks, relinquish any shares, forefit any board positions and sever any form of income outside the income their position pays and blind interest (such as from a bank account or a blind trust). Toss ALL so-called "Lobbyists" out of Government. Anyone can petition the government. Anyone can hold a demonstration. Everyone has a right to present a petition of signed names to their government. I would support raising funds to pay for administration expenses and such for a canvasing operation to get names. But NO ONE in government should be accepting a DIME from lobbyists. All it amounts to is sanctioned bribery. We should be aiming for equal opportunity for a voice in your government. Isn't that the goal of a so-called democratic system? Take the money and power out of politics and start electing actual public servants and representatives of the people. Make them convince us to vote for them and work to keep that vote by representing our voices. Kill the power brokers and money shifting political parties. Disallow the Washington insider game. Make these money-hungry Democrat and Republican bastards accountable to the people, not those who hold shares in their careers. Washington is one big power game between the Democrats & Republicans and WE are the only losers. When you allow politicians to be legally bought you take the power away from the people in general and hand it up to the highest bidder. If you allow shit like the $500 Million dollar coporate-backed party-sponsored presidential campaigns, what chance does anyone other than the party's favorite boy have to run a successful campaign? The power shoud not be in the hands a of the powerful elite few, it should be in the hands of the general populace. This was the vision of the people who started this country in opposition to taxation without representation and the monarchy. This is the point of the democratic ideal. Anything less stands against what America is suppoosed to stand for and stands against individual freedoms, because you and your freedoms are on the table for negotiation. Money has no place in politics, except in balancing the budget as the bankers of the people's common trust fund. These changes would force people to run only on their political positions and not be able to run a campaign without popular support. (runoff voting would go a long way in this respect as well, but that's another discussion) NGO's should not be able to run political ads. If you want to write a "letter to the editor" call into a radio show, post your thoughts on the internet, write a book or exercise your freedom of speech in any other way, more power to you. I DO think that all organizations that want to call themselves "news organizations" should be Non Profit organizations with limitations on how much executives and "personalities" can be paid and only news organizations should be allowed to call the shows they produce and what the put out in print "news". Anyone who does not have "news organization" status should have to make it clear that they are NOT news. Legislation should be introduced to address the problem of Fox News suing for the right to lie to the public if they want to and winning (it happened).
one_raven, well I wouldn't consider my self a Republican, I am conservative, and if you lived with all three of your reprehensive as democrats wouldn't you be a little hostile about them two, the problem is that there are do Democrats in the mold of JFK, Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and a bunch of others that I remember from the late fifties, and early sixties, the democratic party after JFK really went out of control, I can list all the thing that they have done to screw up the country, but I really think we would agree on most, but I just can't support any democrat that is in the active party to day. Have a beer, and enjoy, friend.
First, good idea for a topic. Now, as to your specific proposal, you do realize that you're limiting contributions to $824 per person, way below the current limit of $2000 which is already too low. Even funnier, certain state and local races will have higher limits than in federal races! One likely result would be a huge jump in minimum wage so the politicians could accept larger donations(perhaps that's your intent?). As to your other suggestions, I understand where you're coming from, but I think your ideas would be counterproductive and undemocratic. Under the McCain campaign finance bill, this site could have been shut down due to us discussing politics unless we met all the reporting requirements. Fortunately, for now, the regulators decided against pursuing this option. But they still could lawfully do so. First ammendment be damned. Having the government tell people they can't run ads expressing their opinions on the issues of the day is undemocratic. Individuals often can't afford to place ads, so they band together into a group of like minded individuals. The absurd McCain bill bans these groups running ads 60 days before an election! What the Fuck!? In my opinion, there should be no limits on the amount of money donated. Only US citizens or groups of US citizens should be allowed to donate. The only other rule should be mandatory reporting of all donations. Let the voters decide if a candidate has been "bought". Bill Gates could probably never be elected, because he's a nerd. Presidents must be telegenic, have a full head of hair, and tall. Why can't Bill Gates find some like minded fellow (who happens to be telegenic, tall, and have a full head of hair) and cut him a check for a couple million to fund a campaign? Everyone would know about it, and it would free up this candidate to talk about the issues and not spend all his time whoring around for $824 donations!
You can talk about campaign finance if you want to, but the way to solve most of the problems in government is to limit the terms of office. If a man doesn't have a long time in office, he can't gain enough power for anyone to consider giving him money to do anything ....mainly cause he can't "do" anything on his own! As long as we allow "professional" politicians, we're doomed to do and be as they say. They simply become too powerful. Baron Max
Well, shit!! Since you've seen fit to agree with me, I'll have to take the opposing viewpoint!! Baron Max
