Campaign Reform

[kinggovernor]

I stopped reading once they said "cut and run"

And any limits on campaign spending and finance is an attack on my first amendment rights.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

So you are okay with corporate sponsored government?

yes

[kinggovernor]

another problem with a nationally funded election is that advertising costs different prices in different markets.

30 second spot in NYC/LA costs much more than 30 second spot in Billings Montana

there is no real fair way to do it that way

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I stopped reading once they said "cut and run"

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

But when members of Congress faced a historic opportunity to enact meaningful lobbying and ethics reforms, they chose instead to cut and run.

CleanUpWashington.org - Under the Influence

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

another problem with a nationally funded election is that advertising costs different prices in different markets.

30 second spot in NYC/LA costs much more than 30 second spot in Billings Montana

there is no real fair way to do it that way

That only looks like a reason not to pursue the idea. Im sure these costs differences would be considered.

I have a cut and paste issue that I need to get off of here to attempt to remedy. But as an example, things like the Medicare Prescription program that was written by the giant pharmceutical companies and passed by congress. This bill is a nightmare for seniors but a win win for the pharmaceutical companies while the taxpayers foot the bill. I will follow up with links tomorrow.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

That only looks like a reason not to pursue the idea. Im sure these costs differences would be considered.

I have a cut and paste issue that I need to get off of here to attempt to remedy. But as an example, things like the Medicare Prescription program that was written by the giant pharmceutical companies and passed by congress. This bill is a nightmare for seniors but a win win for the pharmaceutical companies while the taxpayers foot the bill. I will follow up with links tomorrow.

all government programs are hugely inefficient, and a government mandated election campaign would go against everything this country was founded on and be hugely inefficient

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

all government programs are hugely inefficient, and a government mandated election campaign would go against everything this country was founded on and be hugely inefficient

It seems to be meeting with some success. I do want to investigate further but this is all I have for now.

Most important, public funding is fair. Both Republicans and Democrats are successfully using the system in several states. Arizona’s incumbent Governor Janet Napolitano is now running her second campaign using the Clean Elections program. In Maine, the Republican gubernatorial nominee, Chandler Woodcock, opted into that state’s Clean Elections system. The state legislature in Connecticut passed a Clean Elections bill in December 2005. Arizona and Maine have used statewide and legislative clean elections since 2000, and North Carolina started public funding for judicial races in 2004. Many lawmakers say the system frees them to vote their conscience without having to worry about their next campaign dollar.

government mandated election campaign would go against everything this country was founded on and be hugely inefficient

this would be a people mandated campaign, and reform is necessary. What goes against everything this country stands for is having the votes of our congressional representatives bought and paid for by special interest.

[KatKanPlay]

A public funding system for elections is also cost-effective. Congressional candidates spent about $1.3 billion in the last two-year election cycle a miniscule amount when compared to the $2.3 trillion federal budget.(1) If this cost were divided among all 215 million adults in the United States, it would equal the price of a gourmet cup of coffee – a mere $3 per year per eligible voter. These costs pale in comparison to the government’s estimate of $47.4 billion each year that Congress hands out through direct earmarks to wealthy donors, special interests and big business, costing each citizen of voting age $220 a year.(2)

Can someone tell me why this doesnt make sense?

[KatKanPlay]

Although Congress did not pass an energy bill until the summer of 2005, oil and gas companies got a huge headstart when, after contributing more than $1.8 million to George Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, they were invited to sit on Vice-President Cheney’s “Energy Task Force,” whose report provided the blueprint for the energy bill. You were not represented on this super secret task force, however, as neither citizen advocacy groups nor environmental organizations were invited to join.

CleanUpWashington.org | Why Fighting Corruption Matters | Big Oil vs. You

That is a shit load of influence from a single contributor.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

It seems to be meeting with some success. I do want to investigate further but this is all I have for now.




this would be a people mandated campaign, and reform is necessary. What goes against everything this country stands for is having the votes of our congressional representatives bought and paid for by special interest.

because those interests represent our interests

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

CleanUpWashington.org | Why Fighting Corruption Matters | Big Oil vs. You

That is a shit load of influence from a single contributor.

welcome to America, where free speech exists

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

CleanUpWashington.org | Why Fighting Corruption Matters | Big Oil vs. You

That is a shit load of influence from a single contributor.

Why don't I see any stories on that site about George Soros? Doesn't he spend 10's of millions on every election?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Why don't I see any stories on that site about George Soros? Doesn't he spend 10's of millions on every election?

foreign influence on elections is something I believe we could talk about restricting but not funding by Americans

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Why don't I see any stories on that site about George Soros? Doesn't he spend 10's of millions on every election?

I dont know enough about Soros to know what kind of influence he is peddling. If he is buying votes from congress to further his own profit margin and screw the population, then he will eventually be called out, but I dont think that is the case with Soros.

My biggest concern here is that lawmakers have become obligated to corporate/special interest groups to the degree that they no longer vote what is best for American citizens, but rather what is best for the donater at the sacrifice of American citizens. This is not a Partisan discussion because both parties are equally guilty. Im seeing very little interest in this thread for reform of any kind which just indicates to me that most think it is perfectly fine for this country to become a corporate run country and the citizenry might as well get used to it.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

because those interests represent our interests

Not necessarily.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

welcome to America, where free speech exists

It is not free if it costs billions. Campaign finance has become insane. Absolutely no on is suggesting that you will not have the right to support and donate to the politician of your choice. The freedom of speech ends when a better person for the job cant raise enough money to run because big business knows that person wont do their bidding. All we get now is the best lawmakers money can buy. That doesnt mean we are getting the best lawmakers.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Can someone tell me why this doesnt make sense?

It doesn't make sense because there is no way to limit the number of persons who receive the funding. Should Julio Jenkins receive funding at the same level John Kerry and George Bush receive funding?

The obvious answer is primaries, but is the government going to limit what persons spend on primaries? If that's limited, how does a no-name compete with a celebrity, or even a clown picked by one of our two controlling political parties?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

A corporation is not a people.

Yes it is.

And what you are actually has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has to do with buying your local congressman.

You ban campaign contributions and the rich/powerful can stil influence the elections though news agencies. Knight-Ridder can influence more people by writting a few articles then they can by running an ad on tv.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Not necessarily.

supporting interest groups is one the best way for people to get their government needs addressed. The AARP, NRA, Greenpeace etc all service their members rather nicely