What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How To Achieve Real Campaign Finance Reform

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
110,811
Reaction score
27,576
Points
2,180
A lot of people have wasted a lot of energy for a very long time trying to reform campaign finance. The Supreme Court has handed down decisions intended to limit campaign cash, but in recent years they have chipped away at previous rulings.

Congress has passed a bunch of campaign finance laws over the decades, the one most familiar to people being McCain-Feingold.

Yet, despite all this effort, each election cycle sets a new record of spending.

And the re-election rate of incumbents has been unchanged for at least six decades.

For the House, incumbents who run for re-election are returned to DC at a rate of 98 percent.

98 PERCENT!

Senators are re-elected at a rate of 80 percent.

US-House-re-election-rates.jpg


US-senate-re-election-rates.jpg




Campaign finance reform has been one of the biggest failures of American politics.

That is because reformers have been treating the symptoms instead of the disease.
 

Winco

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2019
Messages
11,135
Reaction score
6,528
Points
940
Didn't trump campaign on this?
Then Abused it.

I think he did......What you say?
 
OP
g5000

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
110,811
Reaction score
27,576
Points
2,180
Pretty much everyone, Left and Right, agrees Donald Trump is 100 percent transactional in all he does.

Well, why does anyone give a politician money?

They expect something in return. They either want the politician to do them a favor, or they want the politician to keep doing what they are doing and don't want that politician replaced.

Campaign donations are transactional. Call me Captain Obvious.

As I showed in the OP, efforts to limit the cash side of the transaction have been a tremendous exercise in futility.

That's because campaign cash is not the disease. It is a symptom of the disease.

The disease is the long running consolidation of power at the federal level. Since FDR, we have been taking power away from the states and concentrating it in Washington, DC. more and more and more.

This makes that power so much easier to capture. It's one stop shopping!

I don't believe it is a coincidence the more power we give our federal officials, the more money we have seen flow to them.

Correlation-causation is not always a fallacy.

So what happens if we decide to go crazy and remove the ability of politicians to do favors for special interests?

What happens is we remove the incentive to give those politicians money. What would be the point of giving money to someone who can't do what you want them to do?


Presto, instant campaign finance reform done the way it should be done.

It has long baffled me how the rubes insist on giving the federal government more power over our lives, and then shortly later they are bemoaning the sudden surge of cash going into the coffers of incumbents.

See: Obamacare.

The ones who want to make government bigger want their cake and to eat it, too. But the world just does not work that way.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
70,956
Reaction score
28,668
Points
2,290
Location
In a Republic, actually
The disease is the long running consolidation of power at the federal level.
Wrong.

The disease is the long running consolidation of power at the state level, the parties’ control of state politics and state government – what manifest at the Federal level is merely a reflection of that.

And campaign finance reform has failed because it’s been focused on the Federal level, not the state level.

Indeed, any type of political reform – finance or otherwise – can only be accomplished at the state and local levels.

The ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government is a myth, the false notion that there’s some nefarious plot to take power away from the states and concentrate it in Washington, DC – that the people are helpless victims at the mercy of the big, bad Federal government.

However much a cliché, it’s nonetheless true: the people alone are responsible for the good – or bad – government they get; and bad government starts at the very local level, so does its reform.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
86,041
Reaction score
26,658
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
It has long baffled me how the rubes insist on giving the federal government more power over our lives, and then shortly later they are bemoaning the sudden surge of cash going into the coffers of incumbents.

See: Obamacare.

The ones who want to make government bigger want their cake and to eat it, too. But the world just does not work that way.

Exactly.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
60,007
Reaction score
16,865
Points
2,220
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
A lot of people have wasted a lot of energy for a very long time trying to reform campaign finance. The Supreme Court has handed down decisions intended to limit campaign cash, but in recent years they have chipped away at previous rulings.

Congress has passed a bunch of campaign finance laws over the decades, the one most familiar to people being McCain-Feingold.

Yet, despite all this effort, each election cycle sets a new record of spending.

And the re-election rate of incumbents has been unchanged for at least six decades.

For the House, incumbents who run for re-election are returned to DC at a rate of 98 percent.

98 PERCENT!

Senators are re-elected at a rate of 80 percent.

US-House-re-election-rates.jpg


US-senate-re-election-rates.jpg




Campaign finance reform has been one of the biggest failures of American politics.

That is because reformers have been treating the symptoms instead of the disease.


So why not just limit campaign donations to the area the politician represents. Let politicians learn to manage limited resources, maybe they'll learn how to run government more efficiently.

.
 

22lcidw

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
34,748
Reaction score
15,264
Points
1,585
A lot of people have wasted a lot of energy for a very long time trying to reform campaign finance. The Supreme Court has handed down decisions intended to limit campaign cash, but in recent years they have chipped away at previous rulings.

Congress has passed a bunch of campaign finance laws over the decades, the one most familiar to people being McCain-Feingold.

Yet, despite all this effort, each election cycle sets a new record of spending.

And the re-election rate of incumbents has been unchanged for at least six decades.

For the House, incumbents who run for re-election are returned to DC at a rate of 98 percent.

98 PERCENT!

Senators are re-elected at a rate of 80 percent.

US-House-re-election-rates.jpg


US-senate-re-election-rates.jpg




Campaign finance reform has been one of the biggest failures of American politics.

That is because reformers have been treating the symptoms instead of the disease.
Repeal the 17th Amendment and that takes care of the Senator problem. The House is another issue. At the same time of the 17th amendment repeal term limits on House member can be instituted.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
65,889
Reaction score
22,373
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
The money flows to local and state elections too! It'll just double the state level buy outs and corruption....if the federal cash flow is limited.
 

frigidweirdo

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
40,247
Reaction score
6,620
Points
1,830
A lot of people have wasted a lot of energy for a very long time trying to reform campaign finance. The Supreme Court has handed down decisions intended to limit campaign cash, but in recent years they have chipped away at previous rulings.

Congress has passed a bunch of campaign finance laws over the decades, the one most familiar to people being McCain-Feingold.

Yet, despite all this effort, each election cycle sets a new record of spending.

And the re-election rate of incumbents has been unchanged for at least six decades.

For the House, incumbents who run for re-election are returned to DC at a rate of 98 percent.

98 PERCENT!

Senators are re-elected at a rate of 80 percent.

US-House-re-election-rates.jpg


US-senate-re-election-rates.jpg




Campaign finance reform has been one of the biggest failures of American politics.

That is because reformers have been treating the symptoms instead of the disease.

Germany spent less on it's whole 2017 federal election than one senate race in the US. Why? Because it has a proper electoral system where money doesn't have anywhere near the impact it does with FPTP.
 
OP
g5000

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
110,811
Reaction score
27,576
Points
2,180
Wrong.

The disease is the long running consolidation of power at the state level, the parties’ control of state politics and state government – what manifest at the Federal level is merely a reflection of that.

And campaign finance reform has failed because it’s been focused on the Federal level, not the state level.

Indeed, any type of political reform – finance or otherwise – can only be accomplished at the state and local levels.

The ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government is a myth, the false notion that there’s some nefarious plot to take power away from the states and concentrate it in Washington, DC – that the people are helpless victims at the mercy of the big, bad Federal government.

However much a cliché, it’s nonetheless true: the people alone are responsible for the good – or bad – government they get; and bad government starts at the very local level, so does its reform.
So it is your ignorant opinion that federal power has not massively expanded and usurped power from the states since the Great Depression?

Really?

Wow!
 
OP
g5000

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
110,811
Reaction score
27,576
Points
2,180
So why not just limit campaign donations to the area the politician represents. Let politicians learn to manage limited resources, maybe they'll learn how to run government more efficiently.

.
That would be yet another failed treatment of the symptoms instead of the disease.

"Bob, the chairman of the committee who has oversight of our business is from Ohio. We need to establish an office there or move our HQ there."
 
OP
g5000

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
110,811
Reaction score
27,576
Points
2,180
Repeal the 17th Amendment and that takes care of the Senator problem. The House is another issue. At the same time of the 17th amendment repeal term limits on House member can be instituted.
You might want to look into the history of the 17th Amendment and why it was readily accepted across the country.

I actually created a topic about the reasons to repeal or not repeal it. The Republican motives are not pure.

 
OP
g5000

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
110,811
Reaction score
27,576
Points
2,180
The money flows to local and state elections too! It'll just double the state level buy outs and corruption....if the federal cash flow is limited.
Returning power back to the states would make it much harder to completely capture that power.

Right now, it's one stop shopping. Much easier.

But even better would be to ban that power to begin with. For example, the power to put deductions, exemptions, and credits in the tax code.

That is not a power that cannot go to the states. That is a power which needs to be banned.

It is by far the most abused power and causes us all to pay much higher tax rates, and is the biggest contributor to the federal debt.
 

22lcidw

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
34,748
Reaction score
15,264
Points
1,585
You might want to look into the history of the 17th Amendment and why it was readily accepted across the country.

I actually created a topic about the reasons to repeal or not repeal it. The Republican motives are not pure.

I know what the current law has done. Democracy spouted at every chance possible with totalitarian legislation passed as mandates.
 
OP
g5000

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
110,811
Reaction score
27,576
Points
2,180
Germany spent less on it's whole 2017 federal election than one senate race in the US. Why? Because it has a proper electoral system where money doesn't have anywhere near the impact it does with FPTP.
Germany has a more federalist system than we do.

Also, a lot of the power over the German people has been usurped by the EU.
 
OP
g5000

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
110,811
Reaction score
27,576
Points
2,180
I know what the current law has done. Democracy spouted at every chance possible with totalitarian legislation passed as mandates.
We need to take that power away from the federal government.
 

frigidweirdo

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
40,247
Reaction score
6,620
Points
1,830
Germany has a more federalist system than we do.

Also, a lot of the power over the German people has been usurped by the EU.

It's not about federalism. It's about the electoral system. And no, power of the people has not been usurped by the EU. Germany IS THE EU.
 
OP
g5000

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
110,811
Reaction score
27,576
Points
2,180
It's not about federalism. It's about the electoral system. And no, power of the people has not been usurped by the EU. Germany IS THE EU.
The central government of the EU is in Brussels.

Germany can't so much as export beer without satisfying EU rules and regulations.

That's why the UK left the EU.

You are comparing apples to oranges.
 

frigidweirdo

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
40,247
Reaction score
6,620
Points
1,830
The central government of the EU is in Brussels.

Germany can't so much as export beer without satisfying EU rules and regulations.

That's why the UK left the EU.

Do you even know how the EU works? Doesn't look like it.

And no, it's also not why the UK left.

Zero out of two, not bad.
 
OP
g5000

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
110,811
Reaction score
27,576
Points
2,180
Do you even know how the EU works? Doesn't look like it.

And no, it's also not why the UK left.

Zero out of two, not bad.
I know exactly how the EU works.

A member of the German Bundesrat has almost no say on the rules and regulations regarding the commerce of beer between the member states of the EU.

A member of the US Senate actually writes the rules and regulations regarding the commerce of beer between the American states.

The biggest reason Britain left the EU was economic. The central government in Brussels was not delivering the promised prosperity.

Batting one thousand.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top