Reforming Political Campaigns

[NoJobRob]

I had an idea to get politicians out of bed with the financial industry and special interests. I don't think it's hard to see how politics in America have been corrupted by outside forces. Both right and left are guilty of it. My idea is that political campaigns would be paid for by the government (The lower the budget, the better IMO). The city/township would take care of their own campaigns, the states would cover the cost for the state level campaigns, and Washington would pay for presidential campaigns. They would have a predetermined number of TV and radio commercials per month, and debates at regular intervals. They could simply tell each candidate "Okay Bill, Judy, and Bob, you each have two 1 minute TV commercials and one 30 second radio commercial for the next month. Have them ready in a week, and make them count because that's all you get. Oh, and don't forget about the debate at the end of the month. You've been given the questions, so be sure to be prepared for that."

I think it's important for there to be some sort of reforms put in place because people should be elected based on merit, what they stand for, their ethics, honesty, intelligence, character, etc, not because they have campaign contributors with deep pockets. When you have big money pulling the strings, it's almost certain that the end result will be bad, as history has proven.

Thoughts? What do you guys think about implementing something like this? What ideas do you have to weed corruption out of government? After all, they're supposed to be working for us... There's a few who I do like more than others, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, Carl Levin, Marcy Kaptur, to name a few. I like seeing them grill corrupt P'sOS in senate and congressional hearings and such. It always puts a smile on my face.

[James81]

I'd love to see reform of some kind in this area.

As it stands now, only the people who have money are able to get their name out there in a way that would get them elected.

In fact, I was just talking about this the other night with someone, and I mentioned how, originally, the idea was that anybody could become president. And, yet, it seems like the office of the presidency has become this ladder that only the wealthiest among us could ever have the hope to reach.

Where are all our firemen, teachers, etc. striving to be president? Where are all the middle and lower class peeps (people who, like Abraham Lincoln, start at the bottom in this life and reach the top)?

Why is it that only those who have money can only be the candidates we elect?

[secrets0stolen]

Yes, we definitely need campaign finance reform. The question is 'how?'.

I'm not sure what percentage of the population would be in favor of it; and this issue is for obvious reasons not getting the funding, exposure and political backing it deserves.

[SnerpGoodWord]

The problem with campaign finance "reform" is that it's really a limit on free speech given a different name. The reform proposed typically takes the form of preventing some person or group from speaking in favor of candidates they support (or against those they oppose).

I hold free speech as a much higher value than any concerns about campaign finance.

[Brutha]

The problem with campaign finance "reform" is that it's really a limit on free speech given a different name.

It's not necessary to have free speech limits. If candidates get enough money for their campaigns via public financing it would be a huge step forward.

[NoJobRob]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

The problem with campaign finance "reform" is that it's really a limit on free speech given a different name. The reform proposed typically takes the form of preventing some person or group from speaking in favor of candidates they support (or against those they oppose).

I hold free speech as a much higher value than any concerns about campaign finance.

How does it affect free speech? I don't think it does. The candidates can say whatever they want, and nothing is stopping anyone from doing the same thing. Anyone can say anything they like. It has nothing to do with money.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by NoJobRob

How does it affect free speech? I don't think it does. The candidates can say whatever they want, and nothing is stopping anyone from doing the same thing. Anyone can say anything they like. It has nothing to do with money.

If anything opening up political campaigning to laissez faire capitalist funding is a massive limit on freedom of speech. Not that it's how politicians get funding today but they damn well try to. If we were to cut private funding out of the equation altogether the restrictions would require harsher penalties for breaking them and less loopholes for funding if it were purely state funded.

As it is not every politician can speak their peace because of news organizations that blacklist candidates that they aren't funding. In the last Presidential elections Ron Paul had huge approval ratings but he received virtually no mainstream media attention. Even the electric voting machines were owned by a private company, DieBold.

However money is no longer the most important and most powerful commodity in today's world and making elections state funded may not be much of a solution. The most powerful commodity is information. As is evidenced by how much the media can influence the vote, the more information an organization has the better of an advantage they have toward seeing their pick for candidacy to the oval office. As a rule the average citizen is on the lowest tier of informational awareness thus the only real power they have lies in their vote (which may be no real power at all, as we saw with the DieBold voting machines). Exceptions to the rule are people who make information acquisition and trafficking their job such as journalists. Depending on how much you know, you can change the tide of the elections by choosing what to tell and what not to tell. Your success at using the information to you and your candidacy pick's advantage largely depends on how big of a media engine you have to broadcast it and what the media decides to do with the information.

The average citizen doesn't care to be that informed about the candidacy, many of them don't even bother to find out the names of every candidate! I asked most of my friends who Mike Gravel was last elections and got blank stares. Before I went looking for new friends I realized no amount of informing just them would get them to care. The mindset of most people is one of disconnection from their fellow voters. They'll say things like "oh I don't want to waste a vote on a smaller candidate". While the political noise machines are telling the American citizen what to think and what issues are important this election time and which candidate is going to solve them with his or her superpowers the quality of information is being destroyed.

Information is planted into the average voter's head like a seed. Attended to properly with the right amount of repetition and watering down of information into the most simplistic of platitudes (Hope and Change anyone?) and you will see the probability of the average voter choosing your candidate growing like a weed.

Incorruptible souls would rather plant seeds of discernment and conscientiousness than seeds of seduction and they must be given equal opportunity to do so. A government funded media channel which is only used when elections are in progress which allowed each candidate equal campaign time would help toward the cause of equal candidacy.

However it ultimately rests on each and every individual to responsibly vote, inform themselves and do everything in their power to inform others to the degree that they consider it important. If they consider presidential elections unimportant than they rightfully deserve whatever corrupt things the candidate they let the media tell them to choose does to them and their country during their term in office. There's simply no way to cut out corruption with law permanently and trying to do so occasionally stomps on free will.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It's not necessary to have free speech limits.

If you want to prevent private money, it is. If I want to use my money to buy airtime to speak on a preferred candidate's behalf, that's free speech. If I want to form a corporation with others, pool our money, and do the same - again free speech. I consider any law that prevents either of those activities a profound attack on my personal freedoms.

[Brutha]

If you want to prevent private money, it is.

It's however not necessary for campaign reform. In Germany we have little laws that limit private money and nobody demands them because we have public financing of elections.

You can solve the problem at a price of a few billion per year without touching any free speech rights.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It's however not necessary for campaign reform. In Germany we have little laws that limit private money and nobody demands them because we have public financing of elections.

You can solve the problem at a price of a few billion per year without touching any free speech rights.

It appears that you do in fact radically limit free speech around elections:

State laws limit campaign advertising in radio and television to a few spots that are allotted in the month preceding the election. By an agreement among the states, the political parties may not purchase any advertising time on radio or television, and are thereby limited to the few officially granted campaign spots.

Campaign Finance: Germany – Law Library of Congress

Obviously German campaign law isn't something I follow closely, but that seems to be exactly the sort of free speech restrictions I would strongly oppose assuming it's accurate.

[Brutha]

State laws limit campaign advertising in radio and television to a few spots that are allotted in the month preceding the election. By an agreement among the states, the political parties may not purchase any advertising time on radio or television, and are thereby limited to the few officially granted campaign spots.

Political parties are regulated entities. Money that get donated to them is tax deductible and they get money from the state.

Baring political parties from running TV ads doesn't bare private citizens from running ads.

I admit that we censor some political speech concerning far right ideas like holocaust denial. I don't like that censorship but it doesn't hit ideas that are at the heart of the political discourse.

[Cado]

It seems the root of nearly all these problems is corporations. They own the political parties, they own the press, they own the airwaves, and they have all the rights of a private citizen.

I'm sure there's a lot to be done on the political end of things but if the power of the corporation was reduced this whole situation would be far more manageable.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

It seems the root of nearly all these problems is corporations. They own the political parties, they own the press, they own the airwaves, and they have all the rights of a private citizen.

I'm sure there's a lot to be done on the political end of things but if the power of the corporation was reduced this whole situation would be far more manageable.

IMO the problem is greed, which has been a sort of existential thing for human beings since forever.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

It seems the root of nearly all these problems is corporations. They own the political parties, they own the press, they own the airwaves, and they have all the rights of a private citizen.

I'm sure there's a lot to be done on the political end of things but if the power of the corporation was reduced this whole situation would be far more manageable.

100% agree