How To Achieve Real Campaign Finance Reform

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.
Not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that if all of this money wasn't being spent on campaigns, voters wouldn't be voting for incumbents to such a high degree? Personally, I think that is pretty naive and overly simplistic. And, there is no proof that voting out incumbents would really change much of anything. Didn't the incumbent get voted in in the first place because they were the other in the beginning? Was it money that bought them the office in the beginning? If not, then money is overrated as far as deciding who is going to win.
 
Not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that if all of this money wasn't being spent on campaigns, voters wouldn't be voting for incumbents to such a high degree?
It would level the playing field. Incumbents already have the inherent advantage of their office. When you add the massive financial advantage they have over any challengers, they can be as corrupt as it gets and have no worries of being unseated.

As I mentioned, incumbents in the House are re-elected at a rate of 98 percent.



Personally, I think that is pretty naive and overly simplistic. And, there is no proof that voting out incumbents would really change much of anything. Didn't the incumbent get voted in in the first place because they were the other in the beginning? Was it money that bought them the office in the beginning?
No. What brings a freshman to Congress is his predecessor finally retired or died.

In the recent election, 76 freshmen were elected, out of 479 seats up for grabs.

Guess how many members of Congress retired/died before the election?

66.

You literally have to wait for a congresscritter to die or retire before he can be replaced.

Being elected to Congress is a lifetime appointment.

That's seriously fucked up.
 
It would level the playing field. Incumbents already have the inherent advantage of their office. When you add the massive financial advantage they have over any challengers, they can be as corrupt as it gets and have no worries of being unseated.

As I mentioned, incumbents in the House are re-elected at a rate of 98 percent.




No. What brings a freshman to Congress is his predecessor finally retired or died.

In the recent election, 76 freshmen were elected, out of 479 seats up for grabs.

Guess how many members of Congress retired/died before the election?

66.

You literally have to wait for a congresscritter to die or retire before he can be replaced.

Being elected to Congress is a lifetime appointment.

That's seriously fucked up.
It wouldn't level the playing field at all. That is just an illusion. However, I am against all of the money spent on getting people elected because it is a terrible waste. You are being overly simplistic in your thoughts. According to you, if you voted for "other" and "other" won, then that person automatically becomes an incumbent so you would never vote for that person again, even though that is who you wanted in the first place. With all of the troubles in the country and the world we don't need constant rookies and amateurs running the government.
 
It wouldn't level the playing field at all. That is just an illusion. However, I am against all of the money spent on getting people elected because it is a terrible waste. You are being overly simplistic in your thoughts. According to you, if you voted for "other" and "other" won, then that person automatically becomes an incumbent so you would never vote for that person again, even though that is who you wanted in the first place. With all of the troubles in the country and the world we don't need constant rookies and amateurs running the government.
I must have missed the part where G stated he thinks encumbants should never win. Maybe you can link it.

Or admit you just pulled it out of your ass.

There is a lot of space between 90% and 0%.
 
It wouldn't level the playing field at all. That is just an illusion. However, I am against all of the money spent on getting people elected because it is a terrible waste. You are being overly simplistic in your thoughts. According to you, if you voted for "other" and "other" won, then that person automatically becomes an incumbent so you would never vote for that person again, even though that is who you wanted in the first place. With all of the troubles in the country and the world we don't need constant rookies and amateurs running the government.
You are completely miscomprehending what I am saying.

I said nothing about voting against an incumbent just because they are an incumbent.

There might be people out there that idiotic, but I am not one of them.

I absolutely agree we want experienced legislators carefully deliberating on the issues of the day before writing laws which will focus on the needs of their constituents.

But we don't have that. Our legislators don't care about The People.

We have legislators who only care about pleasing the corporations, labor unions, Wall Street, and other special interests who fund them with mountains of cash.
 
You are completely miscomprehending what I am saying.

I said nothing about voting against an incumbent just because they are an incumbent.

There might be people out there that idiotic, but I am not one of them.

I absolutely agree we want experienced legislators carefully deliberating on the issues of the day before writing laws which will focus on the needs of their constituents.

But we don't have that. Our legislators don't care about The People.

We have legislators who only care about pleasing the corporations, labor unions, Wall Street, and other special interests who fund them with mountains of cash.
While I agree with you, I believe we are on opposite ends of the same coin. However, I am against both parties, although I am a realist in that both parties is what we've got. I believe you to view the world with blue tinted glasses. Everything you post is from the left perspective. I would be fine with setting a monetary limit on campaigns and that would include PACs, Superpacs, and the like. While we have many problems that need addressing in our country, we spend literally billions and billions of dollars on elections. That's just totally insane. None of them get a dime from me, not even from my tax return.
 
The partisan media called it a "bipartisan" victory for campaign finance reform when it was authored by a RINO republican, John McCain and a left wing democrat, Russ Feingold. The media applauded the badly crafted and faulty bill because they supported Al Gore. Among other things, the bill awarded tax exempt status for radical left wing operations like Soros Media Matters that monitors only conservative speech. You can count on democrats to come up with more election gimmicks when they lose the majority.
 
That's because the federal government spends literally trillions and trillions of dollars.
And has power over trillions more.

That's just totally insane.
Many on the left have said that since we have a fiat currency we can literally spend at will and not worry about the debt. I hope they have changed their minds since that has helped lead us to hyperinflation that there seems to be no escape from. We have reached a point where we have to let the shit hit the fan and then pick up the pieces afterward. Anyone on the left who feels we should just keep on spending like fornicating rabbits needs to have their heads examined. All that does is dig our hole deeper and deeper.
 
While I agree with you, I believe we are on opposite ends of the same coin. However, I am against both parties, although I am a realist in that both parties is what we've got. I believe you to view the world with blue tinted glasses. Everything you post is from the left perspective. I would be fine with setting a monetary limit on campaigns and that would include PACs, Superpacs, and the like. While we have many problems that need addressing in our country, we spend literally billions and billions of dollars on elections. That's just totally insane. None of them get a dime from me, not even from my tax return.
*sigh*

Did you not read the first posts I made in this topic?

Every attempt to forcefully limit campaign cash has utterly and completely failed. After six decades of dictats, there is more money in politics than ever.

And the reason is because money flows to where the power is. And federal power has been growing by leaps and bounds for nearly a century.

The only real way to limit money in politics is to LIMIT THE POWER WE GIVE TO THE GOVERNMENT.

That would take away the incentive of giving money to politicians. Why would you give money to a politician who does not have the power to give you what you want?

And somehow, in your VERY confused mind, you think my desire to remove power from government, to actually shrink the size of government, "is from the left perspective".

HOOOOLLLLLEEEEEEEE SHIIIIIIIIT!


Does anyone have to wonder why I get so frustrated around here?

Really?

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
*sigh*

Did you not read the first posts I made in this topic?

Every attempt to forcefully limit campaign cash has utterly and completely failed. After six decades of dictats, there is more money in politics than ever.

And the reason is because money flows to where the power is. And federal power has been growing by leaps and bounds for nearly a century.

The only real way to limit money in politics is to LIMIT THE POWER WE GIVE TO THE GOVERNMENT.

That would take away the incentive of giving money to politicians. Why would you give money to a politician who does not have the power to give you what you want?

And somehow, in your VERY confused mind, you think my desire to remove power from government, to actually shrink the size of government, "is from the left perspective".

HOOOOLLLLLEEEEEEEE SHIIIIIIIIT!


Does anyone have to wonder why I get so frustrated around here?

Really?

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
Nice fantasy. How do you expect to realistically accomplish that?
 

Forum List

Back
Top