Debate Now Campaign Finance Reform

[320 Years of History]

I'm creating this thread after having been inspired by one of Elvis Obama's posts I read in the CDZ.

A corrupt campaign finance system? Yeah, so? Whatta ya gonna do, Bernie, Mr. Smartie Pants? What can be done to repair a system, when you need the consent of the corrupt to affect any systemic reforms? The foxes are guarding the hen house. How is Bernie gonna get them out?

...We need a champion to go into the arena for us to slay a big monkey. Who can we trust with this sacred job? .... Bern, whose base seems to believe that real change can be effected by setting a personal example?

Background/supplemental information about campaign finance reform -- most are scholarly:

• Party Polarization and Campaign Finance
  
• The Issue of Campaign Finance Reform -- This link takes you to a collection of essays on the matter
  
• Do State Campaign Finance Reforms Reduce Public Corruption?
  
• Campaign finance reform and electoral competition: Comment
  
• Campaign Spending and Electoral Competition: Towards More Policy Relevant Research
  
• The Influence of Campaign Contributions on Legislative Policy
  
• Campaign Finance Laws and Political Efficacy: Evidence from the States
  
• Campaign Finance Regulations and the Return on Investment from Campaign Contributions

Thread Questions:

1. What specific policy/legislative revisions to the manner in which we finance federal election campaigns do you think are needed at the federal level to effect any meaningful degree of reform to our system of campaign finance?
2. Assuming you have identified any revisions, why do you think they and not other/different revisions will get the job done? Use verifiable incontrovertible facts and/or cogent inductive arguments to support your answer.
3. If you were Bernie Sanders, what specific legislative or administrative actions would you use to "cajole the foxes away from the hen house," so to speak?
4. How would you go about effecting any revisions you suggested in your answer to question #1, that is, provided your answer to question #1 is not "none" or its equivalent?

Thread Rules:

1. Answer only the thread questions. The questions in the "inspirational" post are off limits and out of scope unless they are specifically asked among the thread questions.
2. What you think about any candidate's ability to (or likelihood of) do (doing) a better or worse job of effecting campaign reform, or why you or anyone else thinks so, is out of scope. Do not go down that road.
3. Stay on topic. The questions are what they are. Answer them to best of your ability. Don't lose sight of the fact that the questions are about federal election finance reform, so if you opt to rely on facts you have gathered and that pertains to states, you'll need to show how it is also relevant at the federal level.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Its not just a US issue. The Tories have been caught out repeatedly breaking the rules on this.

 

[320 Years of History]

If you were Bernie Sanders, what specific legislative or administrative actions would you use to "cajole the foxes away from the hen house," so to speak?

What I'd do is design whatever campaign reform provisions the legislating bodies and executive feel are necessary/going to achieve the desired end and then stipulate in the law the following:

• Set a "go live" date for the law that is at least two election cycles (strict election cycles (2 year intervals) or presidential election cycles (4 year intervals), I wouldn't care which but someone might) in the future with a mandatory independent third party (the CBO would be sufficient) review/audit of the effectiveness of the revisions scheduled for to commence on a date that is (1) at least four years after the "go live" date, and (2) after no more than two presidential elections have happened.
• Require full disclosure of all review results and provide for summarily holding in contempt of Congress individuals who are insufficiently cooperative in response to being asked to contribute information to the reviewers.
• Include in the law a provision expressly prohibiting Congress from passing laws to repeal, delay or prevent the "go live" from happening as scheduled in the law itself and that also prohibits modification before the first review is completed.
• Identify and include in the law alternative methods that will automatically, in sequence, replace provisions that the reviewers found were unsuccessful at achieving their intended results.
• Provide that upon any given provision type's/class's failure to achieve it's desired aims, Congress must devise a new one, or for those provision types whereof none achieve a stated (in the original reform bill) proximity to their desired outcome, the provision automatically ceases to be law.

There might be other things I'd do, but the overall aim of the above is to defer actually having to face the consequences of campaign finance reform far enough into the future that "whomever" can plan for it accordingly and without being surprised by its arrival. I've found in my years of managing change that folks often and overwhelmingly realize the "current state" is broken, but they aren't ready for the fix "now." Because they aren't, they undergo all manners of "storming and norming" to prevent it from happening or to make it happen their way, instead of just identifying the goal, what needs to be fixed to achieve it, the possible ways to fix it, choose one of those ways (however they do so), and move forward.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm creating this thread after having been inspired by one of Elvis Obama's posts I read in the CDZ.

A corrupt campaign finance system? Yeah, so? Whatta ya gonna do, Bernie, Mr. Smartie Pants? What can be done to repair a system, when you need the consent of the corrupt to affect any systemic reforms? The foxes are guarding the hen house. How is Bernie gonna get them out?

...We need a champion to go into the arena for us to slay a big monkey. Who can we trust with this sacred job? .... Bern, whose base seems to believe that real change can be effected by setting a personal example?

Background/supplemental information about campaign finance reform -- most are scholarly:

• Party Polarization and Campaign Finance
  
• The Issue of Campaign Finance Reform -- This link takes you to a collection of essays on the matter
  
• Do State Campaign Finance Reforms Reduce Public Corruption?
  
• Campaign finance reform and electoral competition: Comment
  
• Campaign Spending and Electoral Competition: Towards More Policy Relevant Research
  
• The Influence of Campaign Contributions on Legislative Policy
  
• Campaign Finance Laws and Political Efficacy: Evidence from the States
  
• Campaign Finance Regulations and the Return on Investment from Campaign Contributions

Thread Questions:

1. What specific policy/legislative revisions to the manner in which we finance federal election campaigns do you think are needed at the federal level to effect any meaningful degree of reform to our system of campaign finance?
2. Assuming you have identified any revisions, why do you think they and not other/different revisions will get the job done? Use verifiable incontrovertible facts and/or cogent inductive arguments to support your answer.
3. If you were Bernie Sanders, what specific legislative or administrative actions would you use to "cajole the foxes away from the hen house," so to speak?
4. How would you go about effecting any revisions you suggested in your answer to question #1, that is, provided your answer to question #1 is not "none" or its equivalent?

Thread Rules:

1. Answer only the thread questions. The questions in the "inspirational" post are off limits and out of scope unless they are specifically asked among the thread questions.
2. What you think about any candidate's ability to (or likelihood of) do (doing) a better or worse job of effecting campaign reform, or why you or anyone else thinks so, is out of scope. Do not go down that road.
3. Stay on topic. The questions are what they are. Answer them to best of your ability. Don't lose sight of the fact that the questions are about federal election finance reform, so if you opt to rely on facts you have gathered and that pertains to states, you'll need to show how it is also relevant at the federal level.

1- I don't think that Bernie takes a particularly honest approach to this issue. He speaks of a "corrupt campaign finance system", as if that issue can be lifted from amongst all the other side issues surrounding the general decline of our system of representative government, and effective reform created for just that one problem.

Unfortunately problems do not exist in isolation. Gerrymandering and term limits are intertwined. You cannot, in seeking to eliminate a rat problem, plug up only some of the holes. A system-wide, multi-pronged approach is best.

1- Strong national anti-Gerrymandering legislation.
2- Public financing of elections.
3- A ban on TV advertising for political purposes.
4- Uniform standards for elections and voter ID. Place the burden of proof for such IDs to the government. Let's get those biometric IDs like we've been talking about for so long. Big Brother looms his ugly head! Angels and ministers of grace defend us!
5- Term limits.
6- Lobbying bans. Blanket.
7- End "get out the vote' drives.
8- Shorten and simplify the system. End the use of electors.

2- I don't know what specific steps are most important, or in what order. Representative democracy is on the ropes, imo. What England did with their political TV ban was pretty ballsy, and the merits of the policy have been subject to the usual political opera, with dancing statistics and both sides claiming victory. We'd never try that here though, because we'd never admit there's a problem, and never agree to any lessening of a candidate's 1st amendment rights, without any consideration of how those rights were established in the first place to protect the interests of democracy, not of the individual.

3- If someone really wanted to "drain the swamp", as Nancy "P" put it, they would deny the swamp critters the things they crawl for, money and power. How could you do that, with all them swamp critters ready to turn on you and rend you the moment you commence to tryin'? Catch-22 indeed.

4- We need a revolution, but not a "let's be polite!" revolution. The history of the US, as with all countries since the dawn of time, has been the history of a succession of power grabs. If you want to effect a reverse power grab, from the bottom up, then you better have some serious firepower lined up. Bernie's got some enthusiasm, mostly with the college set, but power? He can't accomplish much with executive orders alone.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm creating this thread after having been inspired by one of Elvis Obama's posts I read in the CDZ.

A corrupt campaign finance system? Yeah, so? Whatta ya gonna do, Bernie, Mr. Smartie Pants? What can be done to repair a system, when you need the consent of the corrupt to affect any systemic reforms? The foxes are guarding the hen house. How is Bernie gonna get them out?

...We need a champion to go into the arena for us to slay a big monkey. Who can we trust with this sacred job? .... Bern, whose base seems to believe that real change can be effected by setting a personal example?

Background/supplemental information about campaign finance reform -- most are scholarly:

• Party Polarization and Campaign Finance
  
• The Issue of Campaign Finance Reform -- This link takes you to a collection of essays on the matter
  
• Do State Campaign Finance Reforms Reduce Public Corruption?
  
• Campaign finance reform and electoral competition: Comment
  
• Campaign Spending and Electoral Competition: Towards More Policy Relevant Research
  
• The Influence of Campaign Contributions on Legislative Policy
  
• Campaign Finance Laws and Political Efficacy: Evidence from the States
  
• Campaign Finance Regulations and the Return on Investment from Campaign Contributions

Thread Questions:

1. What specific policy/legislative revisions to the manner in which we finance federal election campaigns do you think are needed at the federal level to effect any meaningful degree of reform to our system of campaign finance?
2. Assuming you have identified any revisions, why do you think they and not other/different revisions will get the job done? Use verifiable incontrovertible facts and/or cogent inductive arguments to support your answer.
3. If you were Bernie Sanders, what specific legislative or administrative actions would you use to "cajole the foxes away from the hen house," so to speak?
4. How would you go about effecting any revisions you suggested in your answer to question #1, that is, provided your answer to question #1 is not "none" or its equivalent?

Thread Rules:

1. Answer only the thread questions. The questions in the "inspirational" post are off limits and out of scope unless they are specifically asked among the thread questions.
2. What you think about any candidate's ability to (or likelihood of) do (doing) a better or worse job of effecting campaign reform, or why you or anyone else thinks so, is out of scope. Do not go down that road.
3. Stay on topic. The questions are what they are. Answer them to best of your ability. Don't lose sight of the fact that the questions are about federal election finance reform, so if you opt to rely on facts you have gathered and that pertains to states, you'll need to show how it is also relevant at the federal level.

1- I don't think that Bernie takes a particularly honest approach to this issue. He speaks of a "corrupt campaign finance system", as if that issue can be lifted from amongst all the other side issues surrounding the general decline of our system of representative government, and effective reform created for just that one problem.

Unfortunately problems do not exist in isolation. Gerrymandering and term limits are intertwined. You cannot, in seeking to eliminate a rat problem, plug up only some of the holes. A system-wide, multi-pronged approach is best.

1- Strong national anti-Gerrymandering legislation.
2- Public financing of elections.
3- A ban on TV advertising for political purposes.
4- Uniform standards for elections and voter ID. Place the burden of proof for such IDs to the government. Let's get those biometric IDs like we've been talking about for so long. Big Brother looms his ugly head! Angels and ministers of grace defend us!
5- Term limits.
6- Lobbying bans. Blanket.
7- End "get out the vote' drives.
8- Shorten and simplify the system. End the use of electors.

2- I don't know what specific steps are most important, or in what order. Representative democracy is on the ropes, imo. What England did with their political TV ban was pretty ballsy, and the merits of the policy have been subject to the usual political opera, with dancing statistics and both sides claiming victory. We'd never try that here though, because we'd never admit there's a problem, and never agree to any lessening of a candidate's 1st amendment rights, without any consideration of how those rights were established in the first place to protect the interests of democracy, not of the individual.

3- If someone really wanted to "drain the swamp", as Nancy "P" put it, they would deny the swamp critters the things they crawl for, money and power. How could you do that, with all them swamp critters ready to turn on you and rend you the moment you commence to tryin'? Catch-22 indeed.

4- We need a revolution, but not a "let's be polite!" revolution. The history of the US, as with all countries since the dawn of time, has been the history of a succession of power grabs. If you want to effect a reverse power grab, from the bottom up, then you better have some serious firepower lined up. Bernie's got some enthusiasm, mostly with the college set, but power? He can't accomplish much with executive orders alone.

TY for a well thought out reply. I'll reply to it at some point in the next few days...kinda too busy (in IRL) right now to promptly respond with comments of equal substance.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm creating this thread after having been inspired by one of Elvis Obama's posts I read in the CDZ.

A corrupt campaign finance system? Yeah, so? Whatta ya gonna do, Bernie, Mr. Smartie Pants? What can be done to repair a system, when you need the consent of the corrupt to affect any systemic reforms? The foxes are guarding the hen house. How is Bernie gonna get them out?


...We need a champion to go into the arena for us to slay a big monkey. Who can we trust with this sacred job? .... Bern, whose base seems to believe that real change can be effected by setting a personal example?

Background/supplemental information about campaign finance reform -- most are scholarly:

• Party Polarization and Campaign Finance
• The Issue of Campaign Finance Reform -- This link takes you to a collection of essays on the matter
• Do State Campaign Finance Reforms Reduce Public Corruption?
• Campaign finance reform and electoral competition: Comment
• Campaign Spending and Electoral Competition: Towards More Policy Relevant Research
• The Influence of Campaign Contributions on Legislative Policy
• Campaign Finance Laws and Political Efficacy: Evidence from the States
• Campaign Finance Regulations and the Return on Investment from Campaign Contributions

Thread Questions:

1. What specific policy/legislative revisions to the manner in which we finance federal election campaigns do you think are needed at the federal level to effect any meaningful degree of reform to our system of campaign finance?
2. Assuming you have identified any revisions, why do you think they and not other/different revisions will get the job done? Use verifiable incontrovertible facts and/or cogent inductive arguments to support your answer.
3. If you were Bernie Sanders, what specific legislative or administrative actions would you use to "cajole the foxes away from the hen house," so to speak?
4. How would you go about effecting any revisions you suggested in your answer to question #1, that is, provided your answer to question #1 is not "none" or its equivalent?

Thread Rules:

1. Answer only the thread questions. The questions in the "inspirational" post are off limits and out of scope unless they are specifically asked among the thread questions.
2. What you think about any candidate's ability to (or likelihood of) do (doing) a better or worse job of effecting campaign reform, or why you or anyone else thinks so, is out of scope. Do not go down that road.
3. Stay on topic. The questions are what they are. Answer them to best of your ability. Don't lose sight of the fact that the questions are about federal election finance reform, so if you opt to rely on facts you have gathered and that pertains to states, you'll need to show how it is also relevant at the federal level.

1- I don't think that Bernie takes a particularly honest approach to this issue. He speaks of a "corrupt campaign finance system", as if that issue can be lifted from amongst all the other side issues surrounding the general decline of our system of representative government, and effective reform created for just that one problem.


Unfortunately problems do not exist in isolation. Gerrymandering and term limits are intertwined. You cannot, in seeking to eliminate a rat problem, plug up only some of the holes. A system-wide, multi-pronged approach is best.


1- Strong national anti-Gerrymandering legislation.

2- Public financing of elections.

3- A ban on TV advertising for political purposes.

4- Uniform standards for elections and voter ID. Place the burden of proof for such IDs to the government. Let's get those biometric IDs like we've been talking about for so long. Big Brother looms his ugly head! Angels and ministers of grace defend us!

5- Term limits.

6- Lobbying bans. Blanket.

7- End "get out the vote' drives.

8- Shorten and simplify the system. End the use of electors.


2- I don't know what specific steps are most important, or in what order. Representative democracy is on the ropes, imo. What England did with their political TV ban was pretty ballsy, and the merits of the policy have been subject to the usual political opera, with dancing statistics and both sides claiming victory.We'd never try that here though, because we'd never admit there's a problem, and never agree to any lessening of a candidate's 1st amendment rights, without any consideration of how those rights were established in the first place to protect the interests of democracy, not of the individual.


3- If someone really wanted to "drain the swamp", as Nancy "P" put it, they would deny the swamp critters the things they crawl for, money and power. How could you do that, with all them swamp critters ready to turn on you and rend you the moment you commence to tryin'? Catch-22 indeed.


4- We need a revolution, but not a "let's be polite!" revolution. The history of the US, as with all countries since the dawn of time, has been the history of a succession of power grabs. If you want to effect a reverse power grab, from the bottom up, then you better have some serious firepower lined up. Bernie's got some enthusiasm, mostly with the college set, but power? He can't accomplish much with executive orders alone.

Again, thank you for the direct and well composed and considered reply.

Red (remarks offered in reply to OP question 1):
I agree that "fixing" campaign finance, and that only, isn't going to cure all that's wrong with our electoral process. Yes, ideally we'd pursue a multipronged approach that included more of the elements you noted instead of just campaign finance reform. That said and with regard to your criticism of Bernie Sanders...assuming Mr. Sanders recognizes that, and I suspect he does, he yet has an obligation as a leader and as a Presidential aspirant to identify a scope of reform that he thinks is achievable.

A material flaw found in many leaders is that of biting off more than one can chew, so to speak. The only way to avoid that is to set "hard to achieve" goals having a total scope that can be fulfilled within the time one is given to achieve them. In light of the contention that will surely surround attempting to change anything about how election campaigns are conducted, campaign finance reform with regard to federal elections falls within the scope and purview of what a President and the Congress can address. So do a few of the other things you mentioned, but as I said, were I running for President, I'd see not attempting to address them first or raising them now as a matter of managing scope rather than one of not recognizing they are needed as well. To that end, I'd describe Mr. Sanders' thus far articulated approach/aim as "less than comprehensive" rather than as disingenuous.


Blue (remarks offered in reply to OP question 1):
I don't see the correlation between gerrymandering and term limits. Then again, I am operating from a premise that maintains the absence of term limits is a good thing and gerrymandering is a bad thing.

I do see gerrymandering and the use of federal electors as correlated. The correlation I see is that the way in which voting district lines are drawn acts to consolidate or disperse the impact of voters of one or another persuasion's being able to band together to effect an electoral outcome. By splintering or combining voters in a way that's favorable to one's own party, one can sway the electoral outcome, thus driving federal electors to one's party rather than to the opposition. As stated in the thread that inspired this one, I don't think either party wants to yield the privilege of being able to gerrymander voting districts.

That notwithstanding, were we to attempt, on a federal level, to overcome the matter of gerrymandering itself, eliminating the electoral college and simply choosing the President and federal Senators and Representatives based purely on the popular vote would do it. That forces gerrymandering's relevance and application into the realm of state level elections and removes it from the federal level.

So what are the impediments to doing that? Well, for one thing, using electors is codified in the Constitution. That means a Constitutional amendment is needed to get rid of the electoral college. The odds of that happening in one President's term(s) are slim. That's not to say the amendment process cannot be begun in that time frame, for, of course, it can. If a President has a favorable Congress it could get done easily. Absent that, it won't get done. Thus it's an objective that may as well not be broached until one sees the makeup of Congress.

The matter of gerrymandering also is one that's complicated by the "states' rights" issue. How each state chooses electors is a power given expressly to the states. That's why the only way to get rid of it is on a state by state basis, or by abolishing the electoral college and replacing it with the popular vote alone. There's no question in my mind that in the 18th century the electoral college made some sense and was something of a pragmatic approach to choosing a President. In this electronic age, there's little practical need for it.

Pink (remarks offered in reply to OP question 1):
I don't so much care whether campaigns are publically or privately financed. I care that in return for providing financing for campaigns, richer private concerns buy greater shares of political influence than can less rich or poor ones. I believe that federal elected officials should vote based on what the individuals who put them in office want, not based on what a few deep pocketed campaign contributors want. Public financing seems like one way to remove purchased influence from the equation. There may be others.

Brown (remarks offered in reply to OP question 1):
I would not and do not agree with these prohibitions. They are tantamount to saying nobody has the right or ability to make their case for their elected leaders voting one way or the other. These proposals seem like constraints on freedom of expression. I cannot buy into that idea.

Purple:
I don't understand what you're getting at with that proposal. Would you explain a bit more, please?

Lavender:
I do. LOL Campaign finance reform needs to be first because, IMO, money's influence in the elective process is the worst of the ills that needs curing.


BREAK

I need to address the green and light blue remarks in another post. I've run out of time. Sorry....I have a very important presentation to deliver and moderate this coming week and preparing for it takes up much of the free minutes I normally can find to post on this forum.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm creating this thread after having been inspired by one of Elvis Obama's posts I read in the CDZ.

A corrupt campaign finance system? Yeah, so? Whatta ya gonna do, Bernie, Mr. Smartie Pants? What can be done to repair a system, when you need the consent of the corrupt to affect any systemic reforms? The foxes are guarding the hen house. How is Bernie gonna get them out?


...We need a champion to go into the arena for us to slay a big monkey. Who can we trust with this sacred job? .... Bern, whose base seems to believe that real change can be effected by setting a personal example?

Background/supplemental information about campaign finance reform -- most are scholarly:

• Party Polarization and Campaign Finance
• The Issue of Campaign Finance Reform -- This link takes you to a collection of essays on the matter
• Do State Campaign Finance Reforms Reduce Public Corruption?
• Campaign finance reform and electoral competition: Comment
• Campaign Spending and Electoral Competition: Towards More Policy Relevant Research
• The Influence of Campaign Contributions on Legislative Policy
• Campaign Finance Laws and Political Efficacy: Evidence from the States
• Campaign Finance Regulations and the Return on Investment from Campaign Contributions

Thread Questions:

1. What specific policy/legislative revisions to the manner in which we finance federal election campaigns do you think are needed at the federal level to effect any meaningful degree of reform to our system of campaign finance?
2. Assuming you have identified any revisions, why do you think they and not other/different revisions will get the job done? Use verifiable incontrovertible facts and/or cogent inductive arguments to support your answer.
3. If you were Bernie Sanders, what specific legislative or administrative actions would you use to "cajole the foxes away from the hen house," so to speak?
4. How would you go about effecting any revisions you suggested in your answer to question #1, that is, provided your answer to question #1 is not "none" or its equivalent?

Thread Rules:

1. Answer only the thread questions. The questions in the "inspirational" post are off limits and out of scope unless they are specifically asked among the thread questions.
2. What you think about any candidate's ability to (or likelihood of) do (doing) a better or worse job of effecting campaign reform, or why you or anyone else thinks so, is out of scope. Do not go down that road.
3. Stay on topic. The questions are what they are. Answer them to best of your ability. Don't lose sight of the fact that the questions are about federal election finance reform, so if you opt to rely on facts you have gathered and that pertains to states, you'll need to show how it is also relevant at the federal level.

1- I don't think that Bernie takes a particularly honest approach to this issue. He speaks of a "corrupt campaign finance system", as if that issue can be lifted from amongst all the other side issues surrounding the general decline of our system of representative government, and effective reform created for just that one problem.


Unfortunately problems do not exist in isolation. Gerrymandering and term limits are intertwined. You cannot, in seeking to eliminate a rat problem, plug up only some of the holes. A system-wide, multi-pronged approach is best.


1- Strong national anti-Gerrymandering legislation.

2- Public financing of elections.

3- A ban on TV advertising for political purposes.

4- Uniform standards for elections and voter ID. Place the burden of proof for such IDs to the government. Let's get those biometric IDs like we've been talking about for so long. Big Brother looms his ugly head! Angels and ministers of grace defend us!

5- Term limits.

6- Lobbying bans. Blanket.

7- End "get out the vote' drives.

8- Shorten and simplify the system. End the use of electors.


2- I don't know what specific steps are most important, or in what order. Representative democracy is on the ropes, imo. What England did with their political TV ban was pretty ballsy, and the merits of the policy have been subject to the usual political opera, with dancing statistics and both sides claiming victory.We'd never try that here though, because we'd never admit there's a problem, and never agree to any lessening of a candidate's 1st amendment rights, without any consideration of how those rights were established in the first place to protect the interests of democracy, not of the individual.


3- If someone really wanted to "drain the swamp", as Nancy "P" put it, they would deny the swamp critters the things they crawl for, money and power. How could you do that, with all them swamp critters ready to turn on you and rend you the moment you commence to tryin'? Catch-22 indeed.


4- We need a revolution, but not a "let's be polite!" revolution. The history of the US, as with all countries since the dawn of time, has been the history of a succession of power grabs. If you want to effect a reverse power grab, from the bottom up, then you better have some serious firepower lined up. Bernie's got some enthusiasm, mostly with the college set, but power? He can't accomplish much with executive orders alone.

Again, thank you for the direct and well composed and considered reply.

Red (remarks offered in reply to OP question 1):
I agree that "fixing" campaign finance, and that only, isn't going to cure all that's wrong with our electoral process. Yes, ideally we'd pursue a multipronged approach that included more of the elements you noted instead of just campaign finance reform. That said and with regard to your criticism of Bernie Sanders...assuming Mr. Sanders recognizes that, and I suspect he does, he yet has an obligation as a leader and as a Presidential aspirant to identify a scope of reform that he thinks is achievable.

A material flaw found in many leaders is that of biting off more than one can chew, so to speak. The only way to avoid that is to set "hard to achieve" goals having a total scope that can be fulfilled within the time one is given to achieve them. In light of the contention that will surely surround attempting to change anything about how election campaigns are conducted, campaign finance reform with regard to federal elections falls within the scope and purview of what a President and the Congress can address. So do a few of the other things you mentioned, but as I said, were I running for President, I'd see not attempting to address them first or raising them now as a matter of managing scope rather than one of not recognizing they are needed as well. To that end, I'd describe Mr. Sanders' thus far articulated approach/aim as "less than comprehensive" rather than as disingenuous.


Blue (remarks offered in reply to OP question 1):
I don't see the correlation between gerrymandering and term limits. Then again, I am operating from a premise that maintains the absence of term limits is a good thing and gerrymandering is a bad thing.

I do see gerrymandering and the use of federal electors as correlated. The correlation I see is that the way in which voting district lines are drawn acts to consolidate or disperse the impact of voters of one or another persuasion's being able to band together to effect an electoral outcome. By splintering or combining voters in a way that's favorable to one's own party, one can sway the electoral outcome, thus driving federal electors to one's party rather than to the opposition. As stated in the thread that inspired this one, I don't think either party wants to yield the privilege of being able to gerrymander voting districts.

That notwithstanding, were we to attempt, on a federal level, to overcome the matter of gerrymandering itself, eliminating the electoral college and simply choosing the President and federal Senators and Representatives based purely on the popular vote would do it. That forces gerrymandering's relevance and application into the realm of state level elections and removes it from the federal level.

So what are the impediments to doing that? Well, for one thing, using electors is codified in the Constitution. That means a Constitutional amendment is needed to get rid of the electoral college. The odds of that happening in one President's term(s) are slim. That's not to say the amendment process cannot be begun in that time frame, for, of course, it can. If a President has a favorable Congress it could get done easily. Absent that, it won't get done. Thus it's an objective that may as well not be broached until one sees the makeup of Congress.

The matter of gerrymandering also is one that's complicated by the "states' rights" issue. How each state chooses electors is a power given expressly to the states. That's why the only way to get rid of it is on a state by state basis, or by abolishing the electoral college and replacing it with the popular vote alone. There's no question in my mind that in the 18th century the electoral college made some sense and was something of a pragmatic approach to choosing a President. In this electronic age, there's little practical need for it.

Pink (remarks offered in reply to OP question 1):
I don't so much care whether campaigns are publically or privately financed. I care that in return for providing financing for campaigns, richer private concerns buy greater shares of political influence than can less rich or poor ones. I believe that federal elected officials should vote based on what the individuals who put them in office want, not based on what a few deep pocketed campaign contributors want. Public financing seems like one way to remove purchased influence from the equation. There may be others.

Brown (remarks offered in reply to OP question 1):
I would not and do not agree with these prohibitions. They are tantamount to saying nobody has the right or ability to make their case for their elected leaders voting one way or the other. These proposals seem like constraints on freedom of expression. I cannot buy into that idea.

Purple:
I don't understand what you're getting at with that proposal. Would you explain a bit more, please?

Lavender:
I do. LOL Campaign finance reform needs to be first because, IMO, money's influence in the elective process is the worst of the ills that needs curing.


BREAK

I need to address the green and light blue remarks in another post. I've run out of time. Sorry....I have a very important presentation to deliver and moderate this coming week and preparing for it takes up much of the free minutes I normally can find to post on this forum.

RESPONSES TO THE LIGHT BLUE AND GREEN TEXT IN Elvis Obama'S REPLY

Green:
In the UK, political advertisements are banned from being broadcast on TV under the Communications Act 2003 (instead parties are given airtime via party political broadcasts which aren’t classed as advertising). Meanwhile, political ads in non-broadcast media (posters, newspapers etc) whose principal function is to influence voters in local, regional, national or international elections or referendums are exempt from the Advertising Code.

Britain's policy on the matter seems to me like a reasonable compromise approach for combating what amounts to the sometimes libelous and slanderous speech, to say nothing of just outright lying, that our current system permits merely because the remarks are made under the auspices of political campaigning. Regrettably, I suspect that even were such a proposal offered in the Congress, and were it passed, it'd turn into a matter that appears before the SCOTUS as being in violation of the 1st Amendment.

Light Blue:
To that I can only say that out of integrity, one must at least try. After all, unlike swamp creatures, nobody's political opponents in Congress or for the Presidency are going to physically attack one for attempting in good faith to make ours a more perfect union.

 

[anotherlife]

Campaign finance reform? Okay, the latest published campaign finance reform was, that they lifted the cap on corporate donations to campaign funding. The idiots thought that this would help the oil lobby, but ended up helping the red China lobby. Good move, what's next? Printing the dollar in red?

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm creating this thread after having been inspired by one of Elvis Obama's posts I read in the CDZ.

A corrupt campaign finance system? Yeah, so? Whatta ya gonna do, Bernie, Mr. Smartie Pants? What can be done to repair a system, when you need the consent of the corrupt to affect any systemic reforms? The foxes are guarding the hen house. How is Bernie gonna get them out?


...We need a champion to go into the arena for us to slay a big monkey. Who can we trust with this sacred job? .... Bern, whose base seems to believe that real change can be effected by setting a personal example?

Background/supplemental information about campaign finance reform -- most are scholarly:

• Party Polarization and Campaign Finance
• The Issue of Campaign Finance Reform -- This link takes you to a collection of essays on the matter
• Do State Campaign Finance Reforms Reduce Public Corruption?
• Campaign finance reform and electoral competition: Comment
• Campaign Spending and Electoral Competition: Towards More Policy Relevant Research
• The Influence of Campaign Contributions on Legislative Policy
• Campaign Finance Laws and Political Efficacy: Evidence from the States
• Campaign Finance Regulations and the Return on Investment from Campaign Contributions

Thread Questions:

1. What specific policy/legislative revisions to the manner in which we finance federal election campaigns do you think are needed at the federal level to effect any meaningful degree of reform to our system of campaign finance?
2. Assuming you have identified any revisions, why do you think they and not other/different revisions will get the job done? Use verifiable incontrovertible facts and/or cogent inductive arguments to support your answer.
3. If you were Bernie Sanders, what specific legislative or administrative actions would you use to "cajole the foxes away from the hen house," so to speak?
4. How would you go about effecting any revisions you suggested in your answer to question #1, that is, provided your answer to question #1 is not "none" or its equivalent?

Thread Rules:

1. Answer only the thread questions. The questions in the "inspirational" post are off limits and out of scope unless they are specifically asked among the thread questions.
2. What you think about any candidate's ability to (or likelihood of) do (doing) a better or worse job of effecting campaign reform, or why you or anyone else thinks so, is out of scope. Do not go down that road.
3. Stay on topic. The questions are what they are. Answer them to best of your ability. Don't lose sight of the fact that the questions are about federal election finance reform, so if you opt to rely on facts you have gathered and that pertains to states, you'll need to show how it is also relevant at the federal level.

1- I don't think that Bernie takes a particularly honest approach to this issue. He speaks of a "corrupt campaign finance system", as if that issue can be lifted from amongst all the other side issues surrounding the general decline of our system of representative government, and effective reform created for just that one problem.


Unfortunately problems do not exist in isolation. Gerrymandering and term limits are intertwined. You cannot, in seeking to eliminate a rat problem, plug up only some of the holes. A system-wide, multi-pronged approach is best.


1- Strong national anti-Gerrymandering legislation.

2- Public financing of elections.

3- A ban on TV advertising for political purposes.

4- Uniform standards for elections and voter ID. Place the burden of proof for such IDs to the government. Let's get those biometric IDs like we've been talking about for so long. Big Brother looms his ugly head! Angels and ministers of grace defend us!

5- Term limits.

6- Lobbying bans. Blanket.

7- End "get out the vote' drives.

8- Shorten and simplify the system. End the use of electors.


2- I don't know what specific steps are most important, or in what order. Representative democracy is on the ropes, imo. What England did with their political TV ban was pretty ballsy, and the merits of the policy have been subject to the usual political opera, with dancing statistics and both sides claiming victory.We'd never try that here though, because we'd never admit there's a problem, and never agree to any lessening of a candidate's 1st amendment rights, without any consideration of how those rights were established in the first place to protect the interests of democracy, not of the individual.


3- If someone really wanted to "drain the swamp", as Nancy "P" put it, they would deny the swamp critters the things they crawl for, money and power. How could you do that, with all them swamp critters ready to turn on you and rend you the moment you commence to tryin'? Catch-22 indeed.


4- We need a revolution, but not a "let's be polite!" revolution. The history of the US, as with all countries since the dawn of time, has been the history of a succession of power grabs. If you want to effect a reverse power grab, from the bottom up, then you better have some serious firepower lined up. Bernie's got some enthusiasm, mostly with the college set, but power? He can't accomplish much with executive orders alone.

Again, thank you for the direct and well composed and considered reply.

Red (remarks offered in reply to OP question 1):
I agree that "fixing" campaign finance, and that only, isn't going to cure all that's wrong with our electoral process. Yes, ideally we'd pursue a multipronged approach that included more of the elements you noted instead of just campaign finance reform. That said and with regard to your criticism of Bernie Sanders...assuming Mr. Sanders recognizes that, and I suspect he does, he yet has an obligation as a leader and as a Presidential aspirant to identify a scope of reform that he thinks is achievable.

A material flaw found in many leaders is that of biting off more than one can chew, so to speak. The only way to avoid that is to set "hard to achieve" goals having a total scope that can be fulfilled within the time one is given to achieve them. In light of the contention that will surely surround attempting to change anything about how election campaigns are conducted, campaign finance reform with regard to federal elections falls within the scope and purview of what a President and the Congress can address. So do a few of the other things you mentioned, but as I said, were I running for President, I'd see not attempting to address them first or raising them now as a matter of managing scope rather than one of not recognizing they are needed as well. To that end, I'd describe Mr. Sanders' thus far articulated approach/aim as "less than comprehensive" rather than as disingenuous.


Blue (remarks offered in reply to OP question 1):
I don't see the correlation between gerrymandering and term limits. Then again, I am operating from a premise that maintains the absence of term limits is a good thing and gerrymandering is a bad thing.

I do see gerrymandering and the use of federal electors as correlated. The correlation I see is that the way in which voting district lines are drawn acts to consolidate or disperse the impact of voters of one or another persuasion's being able to band together to effect an electoral outcome. By splintering or combining voters in a way that's favorable to one's own party, one can sway the electoral outcome, thus driving federal electors to one's party rather than to the opposition. As stated in the thread that inspired this one, I don't think either party wants to yield the privilege of being able to gerrymander voting districts.

That notwithstanding, were we to attempt, on a federal level, to overcome the matter of gerrymandering itself, eliminating the electoral college and simply choosing the President and federal Senators and Representatives based purely on the popular vote would do it. That forces gerrymandering's relevance and application into the realm of state level elections and removes it from the federal level.

So what are the impediments to doing that? Well, for one thing, using electors is codified in the Constitution. That means a Constitutional amendment is needed to get rid of the electoral college. The odds of that happening in one President's term(s) are slim. That's not to say the amendment process cannot be begun in that time frame, for, of course, it can. If a President has a favorable Congress it could get done easily. Absent that, it won't get done. Thus it's an objective that may as well not be broached until one sees the makeup of Congress.

The matter of gerrymandering also is one that's complicated by the "states' rights" issue. How each state chooses electors is a power given expressly to the states. That's why the only way to get rid of it is on a state by state basis, or by abolishing the electoral college and replacing it with the popular vote alone. There's no question in my mind that in the 18th century the electoral college made some sense and was something of a pragmatic approach to choosing a President. In this electronic age, there's little practical need for it.

Pink (remarks offered in reply to OP question 1):
I don't so much care whether campaigns are publically or privately financed. I care that in return for providing financing for campaigns, richer private concerns buy greater shares of political influence than can less rich or poor ones. I believe that federal elected officials should vote based on what the individuals who put them in office want, not based on what a few deep pocketed campaign contributors want. Public financing seems like one way to remove purchased influence from the equation. There may be others.

Brown (remarks offered in reply to OP question 1):
I would not and do not agree with these prohibitions. They are tantamount to saying nobody has the right or ability to make their case for their elected leaders voting one way or the other. These proposals seem like constraints on freedom of expression. I cannot buy into that idea.

Purple:
I don't understand what you're getting at with that proposal. Would you explain a bit more, please?

Lavender:
I do. LOL Campaign finance reform needs to be first because, IMO, money's influence in the elective process is the worst of the ills that needs curing.


BREAK

I need to address the green and light blue remarks in another post. I've run out of time. Sorry....I have a very important presentation to deliver and moderate this coming week and preparing for it takes up much of the free minutes I normally can find to post on this forum.

Whether we characterize Bernie's actions as disingenuous or vague, the result is the same. He's making pie-in-the-sky promises. I'm glad he's bringing these issues to the forefront of his campaign, and forcing Hillary to give more lip service to these ideas than she would have otherwise done, but it's still just lip service.

Gerrymandering and Term Limits: My interest in this connection sprang up from my trying to figure out why there was a partisan divide on the issue of term limits. Normally I find myself on the progressive side, and here I was, siding with the conservatives regarding term limits. Was this divide simply a matter of both sides staking out polar opposite positions in our hyper partisan circus, or was there something more to it?

The theory which offered me some food-for-thought about why the GOP favored term limits is that term limits make gerrymandering easier. When a party seeks to create "safe" seats and disproportionate representation by redrawing district lines, they inevitably run into opposition from within their own party from those members who will find themselves with smaller districts after the map makers are done, with a corresponding diminishment of their power, patronage and funding. More term limited seats = less resistance to radical redistricting.

I'm afraid you're right about why neither side has the motivation to take on gerrymandering ("You mean we won't be able to cheat either?") It's why I have zero faith in getting corrupt people to suddenly "see the light".

State's rights. Don't get me started. A deal which never gets renegotiated. A license for states to mess with federal elections.

"I would not and do not agree with these prohibitions. They are tantamount to saying nobody has the right or ability to make their case for their elected leaders voting one way or the other. "

I hate all these prohibitions. You could replace all of them with the simple phrase, "vote thoughtfully". All these suggestions are only required if you feel that the American electorate cannot be trusted to stay informed and engaged. The way I look at it you can either abandon democracy or put training wheels on it.

Of all these restrictions, the one I like the most is banning TV ads. Just because someone makes a presentation does not mean that they are engaging with people's intellects. Selling representation is selling ideas, not personalities or personal attacks. You can highlight someone's charm in a 30 second commercial, and you can fling mud, but you cannot do justice to a complex idea. You can only reduce it to empty button pushing. Slick appeals to emotion, not reason.

The purple remarks? Pretty simple, states should stay out of federal elections. No state created voter ID laws designed to deal with the non-existent threat of voter impersonation. No petty scheduling restrictions designed to eliminate "souls to the polls" or student participation in elections. If we decide that IDs are necessary, then use the biometric IDs that we've been talking about issuing since 9/11. Make it easy for people to get these cards. If Mrs. Alma May Tweedy, 87 years young, lacks the necessary ID, then give her a card anyway, It's biometric. It can only be issued to one person. We need to make sure that IDs are not a tool for disenfranchisement. That, of course, opens up a whole separate problem of a national database in the hands of people who might abuse that information, but nothing's perfect.

 

[2aguy]

1. You need to get rid of limits on campaign donations. Anyone can donate anything they want to whoever they want.

2. Currently, only the rich and politicians already elected to federal office have a real chance of getting elected at the federal level. They keep it this way by limiting how much you can donate to candidates.....the guy off the street...is starting from scratch....and to amass the fortune needed to get elected is daunting. If he had one or more rich people willing to donate....he could actually make a run for it....current limits make this impossible...

Campaign donation limits are meant to keep challengers out of the race.