Campaign Reform

[KatKanPlay]

I have searched the forum but couldnt really find a discussion on this. I would like to know what everyone thinks about this. Please read with an open mind and try to keep partisan; you , they, them, those, liberals, conservatives, dems, repubs, etc. out of the converstion. This shouldnt be a partisan topic, but a what is good for our country topic.

CleanUpWashington.org - Under the Influence


What do you think about the Voters First Pledge?

http://http://www.cleanupwashington.org/

I think it is a damn good idea, and a step in the right direction.

[Diesel66]

any law that prevents me from funding a candidate/pushing a bill is an attack on my rights.

[ballz2wallz]

Yeah, I don't think the people themselves should be the target of cleaning up Washington, but the elected officials that need to be cleaned up. Scandals aren't a result of the misdeeds of the people; they are the result of the misdeeds of the person in charge.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

any law that prevents me from funding a candidate/pushing a bill is an attack on my rights.

You are not considered here, corporate donations are the subject.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

any law that prevents me from funding a candidate/pushing a bill is an attack on my rights.

You approve of a bought congress?

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yeah, I don't think the people themselves should be the target of cleaning up Washington, but the elected officials that need to be cleaned up. Scandals aren't a result of the misdeeds of the people; they are the result of the misdeeds of the person in charge.

This has nothing to do with scandals.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

This has nothing to do with scandals.

The two very first paragraphs talk about nothing but scandals.

Scandals involving prominent members of Congress and lobbyists, including the admissions of guilt by Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham of California and Bob Ney of Ohio and lobbyist Jack Abramoff rocked the nation and angered citizens. Other investigations are still pending, including an inquiry about $90,000 in cash found in the freezer of Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana and alleged wrongdoing by Rep. Jerry Lewis of California. But when members of Congress faced a historic opportunity to enact meaningful lobbying and ethics reforms, they chose instead to cut and run.

Some states responded to scandals by reforming their election systems, opting for public funding. What is good for state legislators would also be good for members of Congress. On the federal level, powerful interests and lobbyists spend millions of dollars to gain access to elected officials, and are rewarded with billions of taxpayer dollars in return. The potential leaders of tomorrow who refuse to play this game or do not have access to millions cannot get a start in politics today.

Perhaps you might enlighten us then on what it is specifically that you're thinking about, or liking about this?

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The two very first paragraphs talk about nothing but scandals.



Perhaps you might enlighten us then on what it is specifically that you're thinking about, or liking about this?

The scandals are a symptom of campaign finance by the rich and powerful and in return their interests are best served at the sacrifice of what is best for America. Special interest and corporate greed have taken control of our politicians. The whole article I posted should explain why I think this is a good idea in order to better assure us that a person doesnt have to be super wealthy to serve.

[Kytro]

I don't see why candidates need to be able to run big, expenisve media campains.

The only benefits of big media campains is the ability influence people (like advertisers do) and I think this is a negative rather than a positive.

In fact, I think all candidates deserve equal coverage in terms of advertising.

[KatKanPlay]

Can anyone possibly explain to me why I can only paste a portion of the paragraph I would like to make a comment on. I paste and only get a part of the paragraph and not the whole thing.

I just wanted you to look at the numbers in the A public funding system for elections is also cost-effective.,

These numbers are staggering. Why wouldnt we want to work in a bi-partisan fashion to fix them?

[RMNIXON]

In California I am more concerned about gerrymandered voter districts than the money issue. When either party has a locked in vote, whether at the State House or Congress, then spend more time seeking party power and chasing lobbyists than being responsive to voters! They just pander when election time comes around then go back to doing whatever partisanship dictates after re-election. Then the parties protect them by backing their handpicked candidates over any primary outsiders who might have new ideas or ways of getting things acomplished.

This happened in my own State Assembly seat. There were three candidates set to run as a Democrat. As soon as the party tipped their hat to who they would back the other two backed out of the race. A couple of Republicans ran, but to no contest in a Democrat leaning district cut out like a piece from a puzzle! And the Republicans go along because when the Democrats re-drew district lines they gave the Republicans certain strongholds.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

In California I am more concerned about gerrymandered voter districts than the money issue. When either party has a locked in vote, whether at the State House or Congress, then spend more time seeking party power and chasing lobbyists than being responsive to voters! They just pander when election time comes around then go back to doing whatever partisanship dictates after re-election. Then the parties protect them by backing their handpicked candidates over any primary outsiders who might have new ideas or ways of getting things acomplished.

This happened in my own State Assembly seat. There were three candidates set to run as a Democrat. As soon as the party tipped their hat to who they would back the other two backed out of the race. A couple of Republicans ran, but to no contest in a Democrat leaning district cut out like a piece from a puzzle! And the Republicans go along because when the Democrats re-drew district lines they gave the Republicans certain strongholds.

Do you think this might possibly be a step in the right direction?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I don't see why candidates need to be able to run big, expenisve media campains.

The only benefits of big media campains is the ability influence people (like advertisers do) and I think this is a negative rather than a positive.

In fact, I think all candidates deserve equal coverage in terms of advertising.

I don't see why they can't? If they raise that money from public campaigning, they should be able to use it for any campaigning they want.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Can anyone possibly explain to me why I can only paste a portion of the paragraph I would like to make a comment on. I paste and only get a part of the paragraph and not the whole thing.

I just wanted you to look at the numbers in the A public funding system for elections is also cost-effective.,

These numbers are staggering. Why wouldnt we want to work in a bi-partisan fashion to fix them?

Does it paste into another program like word or notepad?

Copy / paste is a windows function. Should have nothing to do with our board.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I don't see why they can't? If they raise that money from public campaigning, they should be able to use it for any campaigning they want.

You dont think everyone should have a level playing field, including the voters? Public campaigning has become terribly unfair due to corporate and special interest money. Do you think rich corporations are donating and not expecting something in return? Like legislation that assures them a fatter bottom line even if it means screwing the very voters that voted for you?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

You are not considered here, corporate donations are the subject.

Again, any law that prevents people from donanting money to support people/bills is an attack on our speech.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Again, any law that prevents people from donanting money to support people/bills is an attack on our speech.

A corporation is not a people. And what you are actually has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has to do with buying your local congressman. If this is okay with you, then that is what I wanted to know. I dont like the idea of wealth determining who our law makers are going to be. I think we need to find a solution to campaign finance that gives everyone a level playing field. Corporations do not want government to interfer in their operations and neither do I. At the same time corporations should not be allowed to buy our government. And again, it would be financially beneficial for all of us as it would cut out alot of special interest money in tax appropriations. How could this not be a good thing? I am not talking about citizens, so dont come at me with this people/bills, I am talking corporate/bills.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

You dont think everyone should have a level playing field, including the voters? Public campaigning has become terribly unfair due to corporate and special interest money. Do you think rich corporations are donating and not expecting something in return? Like legislation that assures them a fatter bottom line even if it means screwing the very voters that voted for you?

I don't think corporations are going to support a candidate of whose policies they don't already agree with. Which means those voters that voted them in also agree with their policies. How are they getting screwed?

Like I said earlier, if the congressman do something wrong, then that's their problem, not the problem of the corporations that gave them money.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

A corporation is not a people.

A corporatoin is just as much a people as you and I are; they just have more financial means to work with.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

A corporation is just as much a people as you and I are; they just have more financial means to work with.

So you are okay with corporate sponsored government?