Campaign and Election Reforms (Finance and other)

[NorthSideSox72]

We (Kap and I) hereby request your ideas, theories and plans of action to reform the election and/or campaign process here in the U.S. The general purpose is to make the system more fair and equal, to put higher quality individuals in office, and to create a government more properly representative of the interests of the people.

 

What say you?

[Balta1701]

Full public financing of campaigns and elimination of individual or corporate donations to parties or candidates.

[NorthSideSox72]

[HuskyCaucasian]

We (Kap and I) hereby request your ideas, theories and plans of action to reform the election and/or campaign process here in the U.S. The general purpose is to make the system more fair and equal, to put higher quality individuals in office, and to create a government more properly representative of the interests of the people.

 

What say you?

Step one.... get rid of the dumb electoral college system and go stricktly on popular vote.

[Rex Kickass]

I agree with both of those.

[KipWellsFan]

No more silly electronic voting.

[Balta1701]

No more silly electronic voting.

Silly electronic voting = electronic voting without a paper trail.

[southsider2k5]

Sidenote to this thread... This election cycle is going to cost approximately $2.6 billion

[NorthSideSox72]

My views...

 

--The Electoral College, at this point, serves no positive purpose (but it definitely has some negatives). It needs to go.

 

--All states should allow for early voting, thus increasing voter turnout and allowing time to handle various glitches.

 

--Districting for federal Congressional seats should be handled outside of Congress, by an independent body.

 

--Voting machines should all be electronic, but should also all put out a paper receipt to the voter, confirming their votes.

 

ON FINANCE...

 

--Individual contributions to candidates should be limited to a relatively low number, perhaps 2k or 5k per person. Corporations should never be allowed to make any contributions at all. Not-for-profits and lobbying organizations, same thing, not allowed to contribute. If corporations or NFP's want to get TIME from candidates, since they represent large swaths of the population, that is fine. By the way, this financing part isn't difficult to track. Each person (by SS#) contributes to a given candidate (who registers for a TIN as an NFP of sorts). The database can be scraped, and run against transactional information. Also, funds used for anything campaign-related need to be segregated and trackable. Donations by candidates to their own accounts can ONLY be matching to what they earn via government input or the individual donations.

 

--TV and radio time should be pre-allocated for all candidates that can raise enough signatures. Candidates still need to pay for ads, but the time allowed total should be highly, strictly limited and balanced between all candidates.

 

--Paper and in-person advertising would be no-limit.

 

--Debates need to be highly inclusive, and then can be dwindled down later in some fashion.

 

--Non-advertising campaign expenses (travel, food, non-marketing staff, etc.) can be done with their own money if they choose.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Ban all lobbyists from Washington.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ban all lobbyists from Washington.

Lobbyists represent a special interest, made up of some part of the population. Politicians have a need to see what certain lobbys think, to fully represent the best interests of their voters and of the nation. Therefore, to me, they are a positive and need to stay.

 

The problem comes in with the money - they influence with the dollar. That is the part you need to take out. To me, the answer needs to be almost absolute. Say, nothing more than the cost of dinner, per day. Beyond that, any spending MUST be from the annual donations as I noted earlier from individuals, or from government dollars given to all of Congress for basic business expenses.

[Balta1701]

--Individual contributions to candidates should be limited to a relatively low number, perhaps 2k or 5k per person. Corporations should never be allowed to make any contributions at all. Not-for-profits and lobbying organizations, same thing, not allowed to contribute. If corporations or NFP's want to get TIME from candidates, since they represent large swaths of the population, that is fine. By the way, this financing part isn't difficult to track. Each person (by SS#) contributes to a given candidate (who registers for a TIN as an NFP of sorts). The database can be scraped, and run against transactional information. Also, funds used for anything campaign-related need to be segregated and trackable. Donations by candidates to their own accounts can ONLY be matching to what they earn via government input or the individual donations.

Interestingly/Sadly enough, this is basically how the system is structured right now. There is a limit of $2000 currently in individual contributions to a particular candidate. Corporations are not actually allowed to give any sort of direct assistance to any campaign, including either money or the usage of any of a corporation's equipment.

 

What basically happens though is that corporations and really, really rich people get around these limits by arranging along with lobbyists for donations from wealthy donors to be bundled...such that you can become a Bush Ranger if you can find some convenient way through either your employees or friends to get 49 people to contribute that $2000 along with you. There is also some ability on the part of candidates to shift money donated from one campaign to another once it reaches a certian point, through a variety of methods. And almost all individual campaign donations are already tracked and available online, at places like opensecrets.org.

 

In other words, I think what you're proposing is basically the current system at the federal level, or if you up the limit to $5000, it's even less stringent.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Balta1701

[NorthSideSox72]

Interestingly/Sadly enough, this is basically how the system is structured right now. There is a limit of $2000 currently in individual contributions to a particular candidate. Corporations are not actually allowed to give any sort of direct assistance to any campaign, including either money or the usage of any of a corporation's equipment.

 

What basically happens though is that corporations and really, really rich people get around these limits by arranging along with lobbyists for donations from wealthy donors to be bundled...such that you can become a Bush Ranger if you can find some convenient way through either your employees or friends to get 49 people to contribute that $2000 along with you. There is also some ability on the part of candidates to shift money donated from one campaign to another once it reaches a certian point, through a variety of methods. And almost all individual campaign donations are already tracked and available online, at places like opensecrets.org.

 

In other words, I think what you're proposing is basically the current system at the federal level, or if you up the limit to $5000, it's even less stringent.

Then those laws need to... I don't know... BE ENFORCED. If you can convince 50 of your friends to donate, then fine. I have zero problem with that. Now, if you are talking about "shifting" money or anything that results in ANY more money than the 2k per individual going to anyone candidate, then the hammer needs to come down.

[Balta1701]

Then those laws need to... I don't know... BE ENFORCED. If you can convince 50 of your friends to donate, then fine. I have zero problem with that. Now, if you are talking about "shifting" money or anything that results in ANY more money than the 2k per individual going to anyone candidate, then the hammer needs to come down.

Seriously, even if you do all of that, including banning moving campaign funds between different committees...there are still going to be way too many ways for corruption to sneak into the system, politicians will still spend 90% of their time raising funds, and lobbyists will still be in the business of offering up campaign contributions in the millions to people who will support the bills they write. And if you raise the limits at all, it gets even worse.

 

The only way the system of campaign contributions and lobbyists will be fixed is to kill it completely. There is no tweak you can make, there is no hidden trick, there is no magic fix you can make that will suddenly make the system un-corrupt. As long as part of a politician's job includes raising money from anyone, then the system will be broken.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Lobbyists represent a special interest, made up of some part of the population. Politicians have a need to see what certain lobbys think, to fully represent the best interests of their voters and of the nation. Therefore, to me, they are a positive and need to stay.

 

The problem comes in with the money - they influence with the dollar. That is the part you need to take out. To me, the answer needs to be almost absolute. Say, nothing more than the cost of dinner, per day. Beyond that, any spending MUST be from the annual donations as I noted earlier from individuals, or from government dollars given to all of Congress for basic business expenses.

 

 

We're on the same page here. Unfortunately, politicians like their perks and campaign donations so you'll never get rid of one without getting rid of the other.

[NorthSideSox72]

Seriously, even if you do all of that, including banning moving campaign funds between different committees...there are still going to be way too many ways for corruption to sneak into the system, politicians will still spend 90% of their time raising funds, and lobbyists will still be in the business of offering up campaign contributions in the millions to people who will support the bills they write. And if you raise the limits at all, it gets even worse.

 

The only way the system of campaign contributions and lobbyists will be fixed is to kill it completely. There is no tweak you can make, there is no hidden trick, there is no magic fix you can make that will suddenly make the system un-corrupt. As long as part of a politician's job includes raising money from anyone, then the system will be broken.

I don't agree. If Lobbyists raise millions, fine. Where does it go? Because if it ends up with a politician in ANY way, then make it illegal, and the penalty is forfeiture of office. Real simple. And I don't think raising money is evil - just leave it as raising money from the PEOPLE individually. This is really not a hard thing to enforce. I think that is where many of the current laws are going wrong - people go around them. The answers to that are so simple: make the laws direct and to the point and absolute, make the penalties high, and put an enforcement mechanism in place that will actually be used. Those are the missing pieces.

[AbeFroman]

I think the electoral college system is really useless. whoever gets the most votes should be president.

 

I used to be very opposed to publicly funded elections. I've warmed to it some, but not enough to make it completely practical.... Still seems to infringe to greatly on 1st amendment rights.

[Balta1701]

I don't agree. If Lobbyists raise millions, fine. Where does it go? Because if it ends up with a politician in ANY way, then make it illegal, and the penalty is forfeiture of office. Real simple. And I don't think raising money is evil - just leave it as raising money from the PEOPLE individually. This is really not a hard thing to enforce. I think that is where many of the current laws are going wrong - people go around them. The answers to that are so simple: make the laws direct and to the point and absolute, make the penalties high, and put an enforcement mechanism in place that will actually be used. Those are the missing pieces.

But you're missing the one key point...the people giving the money will always, always have an agenda of their own. Especially when you get to big donors, they are donating that money for a reason. If you simply ban the ability of one person to give it directly after raising it from others, then all that person has to do is be the one who hosts the dinner with the politician where all his rich friends show up, which is basically how most of these donations work today anyway. And even if somehow you found a way to ban politicians from having dinner with donors, then politicians will still know which industries are their heavy donors, what their heavy donors want, and so on. If I'm working for an oil company, and I give $2000 to a candidate, do you think that candidate and their workers are too blind to tell where their money is coming from?

 

Any system where people are allowed to contribute directly to a candidate is going to give you the same problem. There is just no way around it. People aren't breaking the law right now, they're following it to the letter, and still industries and wealthy donors are able to arrange it so that their voices are heard a lot more than mine.

[southsider2k5]

I think the electoral college system is really useless. whoever gets the most votes should be president.

 

I used to be very opposed to publicly funded elections. I've warmed to it some, but not enough to make it completely practical.... Still seems to infringe to greatly on 1st amendment rights.

 

I know the first amendment is made as the arguement against public financing of elections. My question is with the amount of money spend in election cycles jumping ever higher, do people who don't have the means to afford things like lobbiers and campaign contributions really have equal protection under the freedom of speech? Heck does the middle class have the same freedom of speech as say Bill Gates? We sure don't have equal access to our politicians and our political system in general as I see it.

[NorthSideSox72]

But you're missing the one key point...the people giving the money will always, always have an agenda of their own. Especially when you get to big donors, they are donating that money for a reason. If you simply ban the ability of one person to give it directly after raising it from others, then all that person has to do is be the one who hosts the dinner with the politician where all his rich friends show up, which is basically how most of these donations work today anyway. And even if somehow you found a way to ban politicians from having dinner with donors, then politicians will still know which industries are their heavy donors, what their heavy donors want, and so on. If I'm working for an oil company, and I give $2000 to a candidate, do you think that candidate and their workers are too blind to tell where their money is coming from?

 

Any system where people are allowed to contribute directly to a candidate is going to give you the same problem. There is just no way around it. People aren't breaking the law right now, they're following it to the letter, and still industries and wealthy donors are able to arrange it so that their voices are heard a lot more than mine.

I haven't missed that point at all - my post addresses that. You cannot enforce against the donators - it must be against the politicians. And it has to be part of the deal going into office that your finances will be tracked mercilessly.

 

And again, as I said, dinner is fine - its face time. Also, a hundred people all donating 2k is fine. I could care less about either one. If that was all it was, was $200,000 from 100 employees of Exxon Mobil (INDIVIDUALLY, it needs to come from them, not the company), then that's all fine and dandy. It won't be enough to influence them. And either way, its then a choice, not blackmail or such things.

[Balta1701]

And again, as I said, dinner is fine - its face time. Also, a hundred people all donating 2k is fine. I could care less about either one. If that was all it was, was $200,000 from 100 employees of Exxon Mobil (INDIVIDUALLY, it needs to come from them, not the company), then that's all fine and dandy. It won't be enough to influence them. And either way, its then a choice, not blackmail or such things.

So in other words, you have no problem at all with the current system, because that is exactly how it works. There are some small details that are different, but you're telling me you have no problem with the general principle. I totally disagree.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Balta1701

[NorthSideSox72]

So in other words, you have no problem at all with the current system, because that is exactly how it works. There are some small details that are different, but you're telling me you have no problem with the general principle. I totally disagree.

I have no problem with the rules I set out. If those are the current rules, then I completely agree with them too.

 

But, if those are the current rules, then they are absolutely not being followed. If they were, then how are candidates raising the kind of money they are? The answer is of course they have found ways around the system. So, like I said, the system needs to have these rules made more clear and absolute.

[Rex Kickass]

Personally, I think that broadcast advertising time should actually be free and available to candidates on a limited basis within a specific campaign window. Outside of that, I think specific campaign advertising should be not allowed. Any issue advertising within the political window would NOT be subject to political advertising rates, as is currently required.

 

I think corporations should not be allowed to donate any money to any candidate or issue whatsoever.

 

I think that no primary should be allowed to be held more than three months prior to a general election.

 

I think the electoral college should be allowed.

 

I think that any form of voting deemed admissible should have a paper trail receipt that is kept for recounts.

[NorthSideSox72]

Personally, I think that broadcast advertising time should actually be free and available to candidates on a limited basis within a specific campaign window. Outside of that, I think specific campaign advertising should be not allowed. Any issue advertising within the political window would NOT be subject to political advertising rates, as is currently required.

 

I think corporations should not be allowed to donate any money to any candidate or issue whatsoever.

 

I think that no primary should be allowed to be held more than three months prior to a general election.

 

I think that any form of voting deemed admissible should have a paper trail receipt that is kept for recounts.

 

I agree on all the above, except maybe a modified version of point number one. I do think candidates should have free TV and radio time, and that any other window for use would be very limited.

 

I think the electoral college should be allowed.

 

This I'd like to hear your explanation of. What possible good does anything other than a popular vote do for a national office? Because as I see it, anything other than that disenfranchises some people.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I think corporations should not be allowed to donate any money to any candidate or issue whatsoever.

 

What about Unions? Political Action Committees? Aren't those groups equally insidious?