Wanna solve almost all our national problems? Then change campaign finance rules.

It really IS that simple.

Have all of our state and national representatives and elected officials funded from a single fund which equally distributes money from contributors anonymously.

What could be more fair than that and what could be done which would make our officials think solely of what is best for us and the country.... rather than some union or special interest group which gave them millions to get them elected.

 

Yet another person with all the answers to our problems.

We'll have a whole new career field. Running and avoiding getting elected.

No matter how they're elected, our officials will have priorities. Enrich themselves first, their families second, their friends third. Oh, there is no fourth.

So, the University of Chicago Health Center will triple Michelle Obama's salary and then they get a multi-million dollar grant. Amazing how that works. Or, a television network hired a Clinton and suddenly gets great access for stories. When you have politicians the mechanism for enriching them will be far more effective than the mechanism to stop it. Remember the man who banned, single-handedly, DDT and killed millions? We he left government work he got a great job with...big surprise...an environmatel group.

I do love people with all the answers. It makes life so simple. It's amazing how few of them have actually done anything though.

 

Real campaign finance reform will NEVER happen, because it would have to be enacted by the very people who benefit from the current system.

 

Although I would never give money willingly to a politician, I do believe that those who do think they are helping either the country or themselves by doing so. If they can't direct the side of the aisle to which their donation goes, then I doubt they would donate. I'm not sure that's all bad but your solution is a non starter, I think. I think single term limites for elected officials is a better approach.

 

Wouldn't change a thing. The money would simply find a way around it.

If you want to minimize government corruption, you must minimize its power.

 

I already have a lawsuit in progress to halt unlimited spending by individuals.

Unions do not appear to be the problem. By saying unions you are attacking a large base of hardworking individuals who rarely can afford to give giant sums. In fact show me a union member that has given over $500,000.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/13/1091261/-Super-PAC-lawsuit-104-Reasonable-person-test

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) i am impressed. A non troll post from you with logic. Kudos!

 

sad but true

 

I am generally troubled by the Supreme Court decision because I believe this country was not just founded on the ideal of free speech but actually the ideal of free and equal speech. But there is one thing that is does do well, and it may be the reason why it actually is overturned even by REpublicans whose party seems to benefit: It gives challengers closer to an equal footing each election season. The advantages that incumbents have held in fundraising seems to be going away. That could be one good thing that comes from the law - but also a reason why incumbents want to tear it down.
_________________________________________________________

A Collective Good: Covering the Presidential Election from a middle ground perspective

 

Capitalism is the most honest form of direct democracy ever created.

Everytime I chose Coke vs. Pepsi vs. Sportsdrink vs. FruitJuice vs. Water.... I spend my dollar as a form of a vote which will determine what institutions will have power and influence in the future.

If I don't like what a particular corporation is doing with my dollars, be that in the quality of their product, or where they chose to spend their lobbying funds, I have the freedom to chose another companies product next time.

This argument is always presented as a Corporate Campaign Dollars OR Democracy situation.

The Truth is, Corporate Campaign Dollars IS Near-Direct Democracy.

Each Dollar you spend is a Vote! Celebrate the Freedom of Capitalism!

 

And who fills in the vacuum left by removing power from the government? The answer is simple. The next biggest bloc of power in line, that being corporate entities.

 

Your entire philosophy is completely dependent upon competition on a level playing field. Corporate interests don't want you to have a level playing field to choose from.

Let me ask you this.

If the companies that are "competing" with each other are owned by the same parent companies, or by the same groups, is that really competition or just the illusion of competition?

 

There is your confusion. Capitalism is economics, and we don't have capitalism today, we have cronyism. Democracy is government, and even ideally we have a controlled democracy, but in reality it is a plutocracy.



You think because you don't by a Coke they will fall to their knees and meet your demands? Hell they don't even know what your demands are, they just know you are no longer part of their target audience.



Blackmail only works if you have power, and individuals have little to no power in this environment controlled by money. Lets assume a major corporation sells something that is a necessity, and three or four of them (on paper anyway), have the industry monopolized. It becomes a holdout game and they not only have the money advantage but the entire advantage. Your playing against a stacked deck already, and you will lose or you will succumb, either way they win.

This is reality. Vote for whomever you wish, they do not represent you and they do not have your best interest in mind. They are planted within the government to work for something/somebody, just not the country's best interest or the majority. It's a scam.

 

By and large corporate interests are furthered by government power. Without government power preventing new competitors, tne corporations would have to (gasp!) compete.

Talking about campaign money is like talking about the symptoms and ignoring the underlying disease.

 

That's not very Democratic that's socialist.
Make it so anyone can give money to any candidate they wish as much as they wish even corporations and labor unions with no limits.

 

It's pretty much that way now. There are loopholes within the system that allows just that.


That's the main reason the system is so corrupt.

 

Were a capitalistic society what is wrong with using capitalistic ways of gathering money to run for president.

 

special interests are people too. Financial contributions rarely contribute more to campaigns than people otherwise would votes. For example, Joe is an NRA supporter, so he gives $25 AND his vote to the NRA backed candidate. Sally is an environmentalists, so she gives $100 AND her vote to the environmentalist candidate. Sue is gay, so she give $2000 AND her vote to the pro-gay marriage candidate.

While I dislike that the 2008 election was (financially speaking) controlled by businesses, unions, and pro-gay activists supporting Obama's record fund raising, I support their right to give their money to whomever they please. Restricting that freedom in any way would be a violation of their constitutional rights.

 

A corporation is nothing more than a business. Those that exist for the long-term simply do so because of efficiency and quality products/services.

I don't understand how people can be so distrustful of their fellow man, but make them a government official and suddenly they are completely trustworthy.

 

Look. In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled that it is a blatant violation of the Constitution to limit the voice of one section of society in order to enhance the voice of another.

You cannot limit the voice of corporations without limiting the voice of unions. It is that simple.

 

This has to be amongst the top 3 posts I've ever read on an internet forum. Awesome post!!

 

You are assuming that they being competitors would want different things when in actuality they would want the same things. Laws are not passed company wise but industry wise or all corporations as a whole so when it comes to politics and lobbying, a vote for coke is a vote for pepsi and vice versa. The more power they have, the more they will strive for the things that will benefit them and not you.

 

So, your goal would be to force people, taxpayers especially, to fund speech with which they disagree.

As long as politicians have the power to sell favors, they will sell them. it may not be for campaign funding, but there is a myriad of reasons to sell out to special interests. Cushy jobs after the political career. More public exposure paid for by those special interests which gets around campaign finance regulations. Cushy jobs for friends and family. And, lastly, because politicians respond better to organized interests than they do the average person writing them a letter. If they want to change the rules on union contracts, for instance, do you think they take a poll, or do they find experts in the unions to advise them on what the rules should be?

 

Set a fair amount that any individual can donate to 'a' candidate they are actually eligible to vote for, including the candidate’s themselves.


Stop pretending that corporations and unions are people.


Stop allowing any money from businesses, foreign nations, special interest groups, and any other ineligible voters/entities from interfering/influencing with the process.


Start treating candidates who accept illegal/unauthorized funds, special treatment, and/or presents/gifts as the organized criminals they are. Fine them, jail them, give them a fair trial, convict them, and confiscate their personal possessions to be sold at public auction, and if their inappropriate actions reach the level of treason, charge them accordingly, give them a fair trial, convict them if the evidence is compelling, and place them in front of a firing squad, to be rid of them.


Of course as somebody already mentioned, the way our government is set up, it would be the responsibility of these criminals to establish such rules, and since they have the most to lose, it is highly unlikely they will do the right thing.


Free speech is exactly what it was meant to be, a voice. If you wish to promote a politician, by all means give the appropriate amount according to the law, then stand on the street corner and knock yourself out.


Buying politicians or elections for that matter is election fraud, not free speech.

 

Will the federal government stop influencing foreign governments and interfering with the affairs of foreign interests?