Reforming Campaign Financing

In another thread someone opened the subject of political campaign financing reform.

The member Individual said -

Well I say here is a can opener and lets tuck in…

How would people reform campaign financing?

 

Easy: all contributions must be anonymous.

 

Here are some of my past musings on the subject from the thread -

What should be in a new US constitution?http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7179316

Campaign funding reform –

No pacs or super pacs allowed – only limited but free advertising slots allowed (in papers and on TV) for any party receiving 5% of vote (to begin with X number of signatures), and only for one month before a election no electioneering allowed at any other times.

Campaign donation wouldn’t go directly to the candidates but to the party and then distributed equally.

Corporation, companies and businesses are not allowed to make contributions.

[edit – maybe corporation, companies,businesses and unions could make political contributions but only after secretly balloting their employees/members as to which party contributions should go to - using a PR system that allows for proportional contributions ]

*

I’d ad to that my ideas on curbing the influence of lobbyists
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=314393

and

On using a Proportional Representation system.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=314393

*

But as I’ve pointed out before many such reforms would be attacked as unconstitutional.

 

Well we certainly wouldn't want anything going against an outdated and archaic document now would we.

 

Hell yeah-they keep their freedoms in those Antiques! Timely thread lets see if it gets anywhere.

 

1. I'd be for a public funds trust used solely for elections, and each level of government would have a public funds trust (one for local government, one for state, one for federal)

2. A public government run website is setup with clear descriptions of all the candidates for whatever position.

3. A candidate will have an opening paragraph on each webpage detailing themselves generally. Below that will be boxes on each main issue (immigration, economic policies, border security, and the environment) each box will detail that candidate's views on those issues and those reactions.

4. The website will be run and maintained using public funds, and the public will see each dollar to make sure this is the case.

5. Government gets 1st priority on all the major TV networks for public debates on policy, if you missed those debates they will be on the website for instant streaming at any public library nationwide or from a home computer.

6. Props will be allowed during debates like charts and graphs as long as sources are clearly cited. (currently they are not allowed)

----

7. Corporations are WELCOME to DONATE to the public funds trust, but must do so anonymously and without any conflict of interest and without hosting any events for ANY candidate.

8. Becoming a "candidate" will already be legally considered a quasi-public position and are barred from accepting private (individual or corporate) favors, gifts, and bribes of any kind.

9. Each Candidate will be allotted an equal amount of public funds to run for their office position at the onset of the campaign. It will be up to their campaign staff to manage that money wisely. There will be 1 allotment of equal money at the onset of Political Primaries, and when the General Election is narrowed with only 1 Representitive all the parties in question, a 2nd allotment of funds will be given to all the candidates until Voting day.




^the above SHOULD be an AMENDMENT to the US CONSTITUTION and NOT just an Act of legislation.

 

Regarding item 7,shouldnt Corporate donations be made public as to the amount donated & by whom to aid transparency & avoid corruption? Otherwise I agree with this post.

 

Well I was implying that the public fund is not attached to any one candidate. Donating to the public fund is donating to the fund that fuels the ENTIRE democratic process.

That FUND gets split evenly in 2 stages, primaries, and the general election.

That way candidate are purely elected on their stance on the issues, on their debates ect...

 

It’s interesting that the usual suspects of the right don’t seem to be contributing to this thread. I’d really like to see how for instance how a right wing libertarian things they could reduce the power and influence of wealth when so many of their ideas would likely only increase it.

 

Monkir

May I seek clarification?

The ‘Electoral Public Funds Trust’ would this replace private donation to specific candidates? Would all and any donation go into that pot and then be distributed?

[just seen post 8 which seems to cover it]

None of your measures seem aimed at what some on the forums have seen as a problem with US politic that being the dominance of the two major parties, I’m wondering what views you have?

[Just an aside – you seem to think in terms of ‘candidates’ rather than ‘parties’ I’m wondering if this thinking is more pronounced in the US than UK?]

 

monkir

I think the trust idea would be attacked as unconstitutional as it limits 'peoples' freedom to ‘voice’ their support for a particular candidate by giving them money, what do you think?

I also so think that individuals and groups just would not give to it. The money would more likely take the PAC and super-PAC route and end up financing political advertising that was not ‘officially’ electoral.

From what I’ve heard the big money is needed by politicians mainly because of TV advertising, (the media companies making a mint), limit or just plain stop that and campaign funds may not need to be so high and the influence of wealth lessens? But again that would be seen by many as unconstitutional.

 

Yeah individuals and groups might not give it. The whole Public Trust might have to be funded through a tax system.


But no I don't think anybody's freedom is restricted. Companies (small businesses and corporations alike) and Individuals can go on their facebooks, write blogs, and do a whole bunch of other sorta things to voice their support for a candidate ON THEIR VIEWS ALONE!

The fact that we don't have a system that supports voting for someone on their platform, is the origin of the corruption.

 

Yes it would replace private donations.


And no I don't think so, there's a good amount of people in the USA who think in "candidates" and also a significant amount who think and vote purely along ideological party lines.

Usually though towards the end phase of an election, each respective party (the main two being Democrat and Republican) filter down to 1 candidate representing each party by the time the General Election happens.

I'd like to see more than those two parties represented at the final round of the General Election.

 

By reducing the power of the Federal government over the individual States and their citizens. Power is most effectively exercised at its source, and when it is centralized, that makes it much easier to access.

 

Hmmm "Reform Campaign Financing," sure it sounds good. But now, it is widely known politicians were taking bribes waaayyy before it was legal, and Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and other elitists, have been controlling our country anyway.(Bush,Romney,Obama etc) So you're kinda asking us to put everything back in Pandora's box, and act like we haven't seen it.

I believe more than ever, America is waking up to corruption in our Government, and drawing their own mental lines in the dirt; Most aren't happy with a system of legalized bribery, but many weren't much happier 10-20 even 50 years ago, because the effect of government bribery, usually has to do with imposing violence and brute force, many times on peaceful individuals. What we need to do is take the power of the federal government away from corporations totally, by giving these conartists no power at all.

It is proven people work better in smaller tribal type settings. There is no reason my tax dollars should be being shipped to Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and, God knows where else, when we need it here at home. The Federal Government doesn't understand the regular American, and that's the cause of this gap. Spending/printing more money wont fix this one. Many people esp Middle Class families feel lied to by Obama and the Government at large.

 

The federal government doesn't give a hang about you, me or anyone else. It's the money made by the shadow government that's important, unfortunately. I have to disagree with you concerning the government not understanding the american people. They understand that they can do anything they want, any place they want, to whomever they want ----and they know we will do NOTHING. They understand us perfectly. And all that money to other countries---you know who gets it and it damn sure isn't the citizens of any country that gets OUR taxpayer $$$. It's the ones that will grease the way for the resources of their own countries to be transferred to the shadow gov.

I used to stick up for the democratic party because of their history of trying to help the working class---now I see that that is a fucking joke.

 

I'm happy to see the 180. Don't be too sad though, society will function with or without government. The truth is, most people truly don't wish to cause harm on others. Most people that do wish to cause harm on others, do it legally through Federal Government Bribes. But, there is a bright side and I want you to see it; now more than ever, people are defending the Constitution and, freedom. American Citizens,police and, soldiers alike will NOT obey Unconstitutional orders. As stated in Article VI of the Constitution (paraphrasing,) that any law which is Unconstitutional is void.

Well, on the other side of the coin, I personally believe a Government which cannot follow it's Constitution, is also null and void.

In other words, the Revolutionaries of the Colonies, did not ask King George if they could succeed, they just did it. They had already lost faith in Government, as many are losing faith now. (on both ends of the spectrum.)


Calling for the abolishment of the federal government, is protected by the First Amendment Rights. That's why, I'm not afraid if the government thinks I'm a bad guy, when they cause most the evil and terror in the world; I still have the freedom to say that. (Although the Government has diluted the Constitution so much, it's water.) yes, this would be a worse case scenerio. But, does anyone believe the biggest terrorists in the world would surrender their power? I doubt it.

 

How about we do away with gambling for our lives and treasure all together?

 

That's why local politics are less gridlocked than state and then federal politics.

But in my opinion, the USA has really never tried PURE public campaign financing for elections. It's high time the nation try it out.

Social media technology makes it possible now for, something we couldn't do in the 1980's even, to really make public bribes that are unofficially taken and would be illegally taken.


We do agree corporate America, and other corporations abroad, have too much say in our government though. I'd go out on a limb to say that I think we both dislike the legalization of super pacs.

 

Gambling for our lives and treasure? Certainly, this wasn't directed to me, was it?