Campaign Finance Reform

Oct 2012
281
18
Flower Mound, TX (In the basement.)
#1
My stance on political contributions is as follows:

1. Only American citizens eligible to vote ought be allowed to make political contributions. So that would eliminate, unions, corporations, foreign nationals, special interest groups* and dead people (that's for Cook county).

2. No limits. If a person wants to give their entire fortune to a political candidate, of what business is it of others?

3. No cash and no loans.

4. Full and immediate disclosure. That means within 12 hours of giving the money, the amount, who gave it, to whom it was given and the source of that money should be in the public domain for any and all to see. That also means that even if it just one dollar it must be reported and reported in full. Any contributions that a candidate receives that does not meet these qualifications must be immediately returned and if the money can't be returned it must be turned over to the local, state or federal government, depending on what office the candidate is running for.

That's my idea of campaign finance reform.


*Special Interest groups would include the NRA. They should not be able to give money to any candidate or political party because the NRA has no vote. If the NRA, under my plan, wanted to take a position on an issue, then they would have every right to make their own political ads and air them as they see fit. Just so long as there was no coordination with any party organization or candidate.

The same would hold true for unions. Or churches. Or any organization.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#2
#1 I agree.
#2 I disagree. It is the business of others because money can buy elections.
#3 What do you mean by no cash?
#4 For the most part agree.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#4
# 2? how do you buy elections?
Advertisements, propaganda, etc. during elections have been proven to work. By allowing anyone to donate as much as they want, those with a lot of money to donate get more power in influencing election to the point where it can become very disproportionate. I don't feel that should be allowed on the official level.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#5
Advertisements, propaganda, etc. during elections have been proven to work. By allowing anyone to donate as much as they want, those with a lot of money to donate get more power in influencing election to the point where it can become very disproportionate. I don't feel that should be allowed on the official level.
so advertisements control elections? sounds like the solution is eliminate advertisements.
 
Jul 2009
5,689
418
Opa Locka
#6
so advertisements control elections? sounds like the solution is eliminate advertisements.
I can get behind that. Candidates should be able to stand on their record (if they have 1) and on their power of persuasion. If a candidate can't show people what good they have done and offer ideas people like, they have no business being in gov't.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#9
What about that old pesky "freedom of speech" thingie?
I knew that was going to come up. The way I look at it, they are volunteering to run for office and they are also volunteering to be public servants on top of that. They can give up some of their freedom of speech to do that- people do it all the time at regular jobs for private companies (you can't say ANYTHING and you can be terminated for some views that might reflect poorly on your employer, etc.). And they are really only yielding that freedom when it comes to the election and namely ads.
 
Oct 2012
281
18
Flower Mound, TX (In the basement.)
#10
I knew that was going to come up. The way I look at it, they are volunteering to run for office and they are also volunteering to be public servants on top of that. They can give up some of their freedom of speech to do that- people do it all the time at regular jobs for private companies (you can't say ANYTHING and you can be terminated for some views that might reflect poorly on your employer, etc.). And they are really only yielding that freedom when it comes to the election and namely ads.
If the candidates can't advertise how do we get to know for whom we are voting?

I like freedom of speech. I also like that I have the freedom NOT to listen to any of what they are saying.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#11
If the candidates can't advertise how do we get to know for whom we are voting?
Debates, speeches, the news, their websites, blogs, etc. Basically everything except the tv ads which are essentially slanderous propaganda most of the time.
 
Oct 2012
281
18
Flower Mound, TX (In the basement.)
#13
#1 I agree.
#2 I disagree. It is the business of others because money can buy elections.
#3 What do you mean by no cash?
#4 For the most part agree.
#2: Money and its use is part of our freedoms of expression. If the government can regulate how much we can spend on the campaigns then that very same government can regulate how much we get paid, or how much we spend in a year, or how much we pay for a business, a car, a house..... The list is endless and an affront to all our freedoms.

#3: No cash means just how it says....no cash. or all donations there must be a trail from the source of the money to the campaign and how it is spent, i.e., no suitcase full of hundred dollars bills.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#14
Ending ads? LOL! Not going to happen.
And you think there is a better chance that the departments of Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security all get abolished? You asked me what reform I would like, not what is most likely :p Although over a few decades I would not say it is impossible.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#15
#2: Money and its use is part of our freedoms of expression. If the government can regulate how much we can spend on the campaigns then that very same government can regulate how much we get paid, or how much we spend in a year, or how much we pay for a business, a car, a house..... The list is endless and an affront to all our freedoms.
The law can be made so that the candidate cannot ACCEPT the donation not that we can't make it. That way, it goes back to my previous point of the candidate having volunteered to be in that position and hence given up some freedoms with that.

#3: No cash means just how it says....no cash. or all donations there must be a trail from the source of the money to the campaign and how it is spent, i.e., no suitcase full of hundred dollars bills.
Gotcha. Some might argue it hurts the less fortunate though (those that don't have access to other methods of payment or choose not to use other forms of payment).
 
Jan 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#16
Ending ads? LOL! Not going to happen.
It definitly never will happen. But that seems to be the only possable solution, what is to stop a private invester from running a political ad slandering an apponent of their pic, that seems to occur now. The lobbies will still lobby, regardless of weather their candidate is involved. Without feds taking complete control of the airwaves, there really isnt a way to fix it.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#17
Debates, speeches, the news, their websites, blogs, etc. Basically everything except the tv ads which are essentially slanderous propaganda most of the time.
Speaking of debates, wouldn't it be fairer to involve third-party candidates? This would improve the plurality of the process.
 
Jul 2009
5,689
418
Opa Locka
#18
Speaking of debates, wouldn't it be fairer to involve third-party candidates? This would improve the plurality of the process.
Democracy Now! actually had 2 minor party candidates partake in the debate. They carried the debate semi-live and after Obama and Romney answered a question would pause the feed and let them answer as well. Rise and repeat.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#19
Speaking of debates, wouldn't it be fairer to involve third-party candidates? This would improve the plurality of the process.
Probably wouldn't make a difference here. But in my opinion even better would be to let a third party or national organization handle the debate questions/moderation instead of a consortium of the two parties. In that case we might have some 3rd party candidates up there too (although again I don't think it would make much of a difference- might be more of a time waste if anything).
 
Oct 2012
3,862
631
Louisville, Ky
#20
In my perfect little world:

1) citizens United goes away.
2) public financing is mandatory.
3) all registered political parties, are in a first debate...candidates obviously chosen.
4) after the debate, we go all "American Idol", and every citizen with a phone can decide which ones go on...( however many that may be).
5) rinse and repeat...for the next six(?) survivors.
6) whoever is left goes on a POPULAR VOTE ballot.
7) mandatory 7 day early voting period.

8) Celebrate Democracy