Campaign Fiance Reform

[Wiseacre]

Was talking with Wrycatcher about this in a sports thread of all places. Right now, I think it's ridiculous; anybody can secretly spend money to elect anybody, that's really crazy. Freedom of speech guarantees that anyone can support any campaign, which is fine. But it seems to me that before any tv ad is run or money accepted that the campaign it is for should have a veto over it. If they approve the ad or accept the money, then that decision should be made public somewhere. Periodically a list of the top donors would be publicized so people know who's getting what from whom.

If it was me I'd have an independent organization through which evey penny must flow before a campaign receives it. The donor and amount is logged, and publicized if over a certain amount, say $5000 or whatever. If the donor is undetermined, the money goes into a pot to be shared with every serious candidate. The organization would be funded by one penny out of very dollar contributed to any campaign or in a tax return where you put a dollar of your taxes to political campaigns. And here's the kicker, violators get fined at least twice the amount that was spent or contributed AND they spend time in jail. While the politician may not be aware, he/she should be; so while I wouldn't put 'em jail unless it can be proved they had a hand in it, I would not allow them to run for office for the next 10 years or so.

 

[jaffeh]

Campaign finance is now a matter of who has the money to buy the best for the buyer candidate, period.

I see only one fair way.

Give each viable candidate for each office one amount of money to spend on a campaign. Take it from tax money, but no other money is allowed.

Let them do what they can with it.

The people pay, the people get the candidates they want.

Stop corporate payoffs buying our rulers, ALL of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let him present the ring first.

Oh, you meant "finance" reform.

Get rid of every restriction but make sure every contribution is disclosed by source within 72 hours.

 

[Wiseacre]

Let him present the ring first.

Oh, you meant "finance" reform.

Get rid of every restriction but make sure every contribution is disclosed by source within 72 hours.

Sorry, fat fingered it. Fixed it. Uh, maybe.

 

[occupied]

Direct contributions to campaigns is no longer the big problem here, that money is limited and reported by law as always, it is the so called advocacy ads. If you want to spend money to support or smear a candidate on policy issues, as long as it is not directly connected with the campaign, you can anonymously spend as much as you want even if you happen to be a foreigner. This is the new wave of dirty money in politics and according to the SCOTUS we have no right to know who spent or to hold them accountable for any "exaggeration".

 

[g5000]

anybody can secretly spend money to elect anybody

Where did you get that idea? Rachel Maddow?

Periodically a list of the top donors would be publicized so people know who's getting what from whom.

That is already the law.

 

[g5000]

Direct contributions to campaigns is no longer the big problem here, that money is limited and reported by law as always, it is the so called advocacy ads. If you want to spend money to support or smear a candidate on policy issues, as long as it is not directly connected with the campaign, you can anonymously spend as much as you want even if you happen to be a foreigner.

This is completely false.

Those organizations also have to disclose their donors.

 

[whitehall]

Was talking with Wrycatcher about this in a sports thread of all places. Right now, I think it's ridiculous; anybody can secretly spend money to elect anybody, that's really crazy. Freedom of speech guarantees that anyone can support any campaign, which is fine. But it seems to me that before any tv ad is run or money accepted that the campaign it is for should have a veto over it. If they approve the ad or accept the money, then that decision should be made public somewhere. Periodically a list of the top donors would be publicized so people know who's getting what from whom.

If it was me I'd have an independent organization through which evey penny must flow before a campaign receives it. The donor and amount is logged, and publicized if over a certain amount, say $5000 or whatever. If the donor is undetermined, the money goes into a pot to be shared with every serious candidate. The organization would be funded by one penny out of very dollar contributed to any campaign or in a tax return where you put a dollar of your taxes to political campaigns. And here's the kicker, violators get fined at least twice the amount that was spent or contributed AND they spend time in jail. While the politician may not be aware, he/she should be; so while I wouldn't put 'em jail unless it can be proved they had a hand in it, I would not allow them to run for office for the next 10 years or so.[/QUOTE

Here's a thought, it wouldn't be an "independent organization" if it was monitored by the government. Fannie Mae is an example of the alleged cooperation between government and an "organization". How did that work out? Before the Tea Party majority Congress couldn't even run a post office without stealing stamps and it couldn't run a caffeteria without stealing tablecloths. The bottom line is that bigger government ain't the solution, like Reagan said it's the problem.

 

[Wiseacre]

anybody can secretly spend money to elect anybody

Where did you get that idea? Rachel Maddow?

Periodically a list of the top donors would be publicized so people know who's getting what from whom.

That is already the law.

Really? So where do I go to find out who's paying for all the attack ads paid for by a super PAC? Where do I go to see who's giving big bucks to a particular candidate?

 

[g5000]

anybody can secretly spend money to elect anybody

Where did you get that idea? Rachel Maddow?

Periodically a list of the top donors would be publicized so people know who's getting what from whom.

That is already the law.

Really? So where do I go to find out who's paying for all the attack ads paid for by a super PAC? Where do I go to see who's giving big bucks to a particular candidate?

OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting

You're welcome.

 

[g5000]

Any 527 organization that runs any kind of media advertising promoting or attacking a political candidate must disclose every donor who contributed more than $200. That's the law.

So when Rachel Maddow, or whoever it is you are listening to, sneaks in the word "secret" when talking about the donations behind such TV ads, she is full of shit. Lying.

 

[occupied]

Direct contributions to campaigns is no longer the big problem here, that money is limited and reported by law as always, it is the so called advocacy ads. If you want to spend money to support or smear a candidate on policy issues, as long as it is not directly connected with the campaign, you can anonymously spend as much as you want even if you happen to be a foreigner.

This is completely false.

Those organizations also have to disclose their donors.

It is quite permissible for these organizations to take donations from "charitable organizations" who do not have to disclose donors.

 

[g5000]

If you decide an ad is true or false by who paid for it, then you are a partisan idiot and no law will ever protect you from your own laziness and stupidity.

Christ, I'm sick of people who know nothing about a politician except what they heard on TV or AM radio, but consume every possible source they can find about some reality TV bimbo.

People like that deserve to be lied to, and they get the government they deserve.

You can't legislate intelligence into people.

 

[g5000]

Direct contributions to campaigns is no longer the big problem here, that money is limited and reported by law as always, it is the so called advocacy ads. If you want to spend money to support or smear a candidate on policy issues, as long as it is not directly connected with the campaign, you can anonymously spend as much as you want even if you happen to be a foreigner.

This is completely false.

Those organizations also have to disclose their donors.

It is quite permissible for these organizations to take donations from "charitable organizations" who do not have to disclose donors.

501(c)4 organizations can lose their tax exempt status if political electioneering is their primary purpose.

 

[whitehall]

The dirty little secret is that the campaign finance radicals are just another tired offshoot of the OWS tired socialist revolution.

 

[occupied]

This is completely false.

Those organizations also have to disclose their donors.

It is quite permissible for these organizations to take donations from "charitable organizations" who do not have to disclose donors.

501(c)4 organizations can lose their tax exempt status if political electioneering is their primary purpose.

That's why I originally said they can support or attack candidates on the issues. As long as it is even slightly educational or informative in some way and not a direct attack on the candidate himself it is just fine.

Check out this list of super PACs poised to shower us with "informative" educational ads this year.

Super PACs | OpenSecrets

 

[Wiseacre]

Any 527 organization that runs any kind of media advertising promoting or attacking a political candidate must disclose every donor who contributed more than $200. That's the law.

So when Rachel Maddow, or whoever it is you are listening to, sneaks in the word "secret" when talking about the donations behind such TV ads, she is full of shit. Lying.

First of all, I do not readily believe Maddow or anyone else, I try to get more than one source and keep an open mind. LOL, and when I do it sure as hell isn't gonna be anybody from MSNBC.

Second, I'm not convinced every donation over $200 to a PAC or campaign is vetted to make sure the source is in fact who they say it is. Your website doesn't seem to show individual donors to a PAC, maybe I missed it. Thanks anyway for the website.

Third, I think every political ad should be approved by one of the campaigns before it airs. If it's a negative ad, it should be required to say who is supposed to be the beneficiary, and if that campaign doesn't like the ad then it never runs. None of this crap where someone can say it's out of my control, somebody who's in the race has to ultimately be responsible for any ad, especially the negative ones.

Finally, the independent organization that monitors all this stuff and acts as the watchdog has to be truly independent of Congress or the WH, like the Fed is. Congress can set the parameters with the approval of the WH and the blessing of the courts, but otherwise they stay out of it. The oversight commitees can investigate if improper conduct is suspected by anyone in any campaign, including the independent organization itself. And people should go to jail for violations and pay a hefty fine.

I don't know how else to do it, but something's gotta change. That's why I opened this thread, does anyone have a better idea? Or an improvement? If so, share it.

 

[g5000]

It is quite permissible for these organizations to take donations from "charitable organizations" who do not have to disclose donors.

501(c)4 organizations can lose their tax exempt status if political electioneering is their primary purpose.

That's why I originally said they can support or attack candidates on the issues. As long as it is even slightly educational or informative in some way and not a direct attack on the candidate himself it is just fine.

Check out this list of super PACs poised to shower us with "informative" educational ads this year.

Super PACs | OpenSecrets

Click on any one of those organization in that link. That will then take you to a page for that organization. There you will find several tabs, one of which is "Donors".

Every donor who contributed more than $200 is listed.

Here is the donor list for the first organization on the list: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00490045

Individual donors gave 90 large ($200+) contributions to this PAC in 2011-2012.

 

[g5000]

The first organization on the list is "Restore Our Future".

Here is one of the donors:

ZIDE, STEPHEN
OLD GREENWICH, CT 06870

BAIN CAPITAL, LLC/INVESTOR

03/01/11

$250,000

I see hedge fund CEO John Paulson is also a donor. He's donated a cool million dollars to Restore Our Future.

He's the one who put together the fraudulent ABACUS 2007ac-1 CDO with Goldman Sachs and ripped off investors for hundreds of millions of dollars.

And yet he is not in jail.

 

[Flopper]

Direct contributions to campaigns is no longer the big problem here, that money is limited and reported by law as always, it is the so called advocacy ads. If you want to spend money to support or smear a candidate on policy issues, as long as it is not directly connected with the campaign, you can anonymously spend as much as you want even if you happen to be a foreigner. This is the new wave of dirty money in politics and according to the SCOTUS we have no right to know who spent or to hold them accountable for any "exaggeration".

I think you pretty well nailed it. It's the various interest groups that flood the airways with character assignation and just plain lies. You can't limit them without limiting freedom of speech and it can be difficult to find out just who's paying for the ads.

Being able put the most damaging ads before the most voters, regardless of whether they are true can go a long way in getting your candidate elected.