So, I was reading through the responses on the revolution thread when I came across a bunch of people repeating the idea of publicly funded elections and railing against the corporate money in elections; particularly after the citizens united ruling. I want to make this its own thread because there is far to much to discuss in this area without derailing another thread. There are two parts to this: Public funding and corporate money.
First: public funding is a complete wash. I wish people would simply cease putting this idea out there because it is completely untenable. There are a few reasons why but the most paramount amount them is who decides who gets the money. Who gets to make that decision because if there is public money for grabs maybe I should run for governor and ride the wave.
Simply put, there is no way of sorting out the possible candidates that does not completely speak of a far more corrupt system than we currently have. You think our current 2 party system is corrupt, what are you going to see when we have to decide who, out of the thousand people that want to run in a given election, actually gets to run.
The other problem is that the current incumbent has a massive advantage in any situation where funding is tight. They already have the publics attention and a method of reaching out. A good example of this would be the many trips that Obama has conveniently taken to the battleground states a while back. All were funded outside the campaign because he did have legitimate reason and leeway to visit those places as the POTUS. That does not mean that he was not campaigning as he was there. Would you really be behind undercutting anyone attempting to oust a sitting candidate? That is crazy.
Second: corporate money. You are not going to get the corporate money out of Washington and citizens united really did not make the problem much worse. Not only is the issue before they gain office but it continues while they are in office all the way until they retire. Do you really think that Gingrich did nothing to receive his historian paycheck after he left congress. Of course he did. Being beholden to companies for reelection, IMHO, is actually a far lesser problem then politicians being purchased while they are in office for promised benefits either during their tenure of after. Short of illegalizing politicians from ever making money from anything other than their salaries, you are not going to limit this influence without removing the ability for politicians to pander to specific companies.
Speaking to that, the only solution I believe will ever come close to working is removing congresses ability to pander to individual businesses through the tax code. Almost all the money will dry up as soon as government handouts in the form of corporate welfare are extinguished. .
Comments
First: public funding is a complete wash. I wish people would simply cease putting this idea out there because it is completely untenable. There are a few reasons why but the most paramount amount them is who decides who gets the money. Who gets to make that decision because if there is public money for grabs maybe I should run for governor and ride the wave.
Simply put, there is no way of sorting out the possible candidates that does not completely speak of a far more corrupt system than we currently have. You think our current 2 party system is corrupt, what are you going to see when we have to decide who, out of the thousand people that want to run in a given election, actually gets to run.
The other problem is that the current incumbent has a massive advantage in any situation where funding is tight. They already have the publics attention and a method of reaching out. A good example of this would be the many trips that Obama has conveniently taken to the battleground states a while back. All were funded outside the campaign because he did have legitimate reason and leeway to visit those places as the POTUS. That does not mean that he was not campaigning as he was there. Would you really be behind undercutting anyone attempting to oust a sitting candidate? That is crazy.
Second: corporate money. You are not going to get the corporate money out of Washington and citizens united really did not make the problem much worse. Not only is the issue before they gain office but it continues while they are in office all the way until they retire. Do you really think that Gingrich did nothing to receive his historian paycheck after he left congress. Of course he did. Being beholden to companies for reelection, IMHO, is actually a far lesser problem then politicians being purchased while they are in office for promised benefits either during their tenure of after. Short of illegalizing politicians from ever making money from anything other than their salaries, you are not going to limit this influence without removing the ability for politicians to pander to specific companies.
Speaking to that, the only solution I believe will ever come close to working is removing congresses ability to pander to individual businesses through the tax code. Almost all the money will dry up as soon as government handouts in the form of corporate welfare are extinguished. .
Comments