If the Constitution were yours to change...

[candycorn]

It's about trying to put together a better system that isn't tilted towards special interests, NOT whether I'm a Democrat or Republican.

too stupid!! there are only 2 political ideas in the world: Democrat and Republican; thats why those are the only two names that appear when you enter the voting booth!!

Now you know your ABCs too.

Dumbest post ever.
Welcome to the ignore list.
<plink!>

 

[candycorn]

Pretty much all. If we expect our representitives to do what the majority wants, the majority is going to have to pay, not just a relatively small minority of large donors. While small donors do represent a significant portion of donations, it's the large donors that get listened to the most.

I think it's a good idea. But I do also think that every 2 years for Federal elections, radio, print, and television should have to give free air time to the serious candidates. Your idea is to attack the source of the money; I'd like to help eliminate the need for the moeny in the first place.

But why stop at Federal elections?

The costs involved in running a (or what should be anyway) a 50 state, 4 time zone, state-wide or district-wide (which can bleed into several different media markets too) is much higher than city council, mayoral, state representative races, etc...

As for gubenatorial elections, you may have a point there since it is state wide and satisfies the multi-media-market qualifier I was using. However, there usually isn't more than 3 or 4 persons who can seriously call themselves viable candidates. Laws don't apply to usual circumstances however so perhaps Statewide races should be included.

And who decides the standard for a "serious" candidate?

Any number of hurdles can be set up. I prefer a candidate who can get X number of signatures on a petition or, in the case of a President, is on the ballot in enough states to deliver a statistical electoral vote victory.

Perhaps a combination of the two for Presidential elections.

I envision such a scenario as leading to a great deal of complexity, and the loopholes that come with it. Seems more efficient to make sure that nobody spends more than a fixed amount on a single campaign.

I don't like the idea myself and here is why. Your Super PAC can spend money on your behalf. The NRA can spend money on the behalf of a candidate as can The Sierra Club. Remove the need for the money and you don't get the spending and the inevitable "Remember how much I campaigned for you in the election? Now you're going to work for me" that comes with the money.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's about trying to put together a better system that isn't tilted towards special interests, NOT whether I'm a Democrat or Republican.

too stupid!! there are only 2 political ideas in the world: Democrat and Republican; thats why those are the only two names that appear when you enter the voting booth!!

Now you know your ABCs too.

Dumbest post ever.
Welcome to the ignore list.
<plink!>

liberal without IQ for substance

 

[konradv]

It's about trying to put together a better system that isn't tilted towards special interests, NOT whether I'm a Democrat or Republican.

too stupid!! there are only 2 political ideas in the world: Democrat and Republican; thats why those are the only two names that appear when you enter the voting booth!!

Now you know your ABCs too.

Don't know where you're from, but in my jurisdiction there are at least 5 or 6 choices. What does that have to do with campaign finance? My idea stands whether there are two or twenty-two parties.

 

[nodoginnafight]

IMHO: The Constitution is 99% fine the way it is. It can be amended if needed, but not on a whim.
I would only favor verbiage to limit judicial activism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Don't know where you're from, but in my jurisdiction there are at least 5 or 6 choices.

there are no new ideas under the sun. History is only the battle between Freedom (Republican) and government (Democrat).
Other parties are just versions of the above but don't have a meaningfully different idea

What does that have to do with campaign finance? My idea stands whether there are two or twenty-two parties.

all the finance reform in the world won't help people decide that the Democrat idea is perfectly stupid

 

[konradv]

Don't know where you're from, but in my jurisdiction there are at least 5 or 6 choices.

there are no new ideas under the sun. History is only the battle between Freedom (Republican) and government (Democrat).
Other parties are just versions of the above but don't have a meaningfully different idea

What does that have to do with campaign finance? My idea stands whether there are two or twenty-two parties.

all the finance reform in the world won't help people decide that the Democrat idea is perfectly stupid

All the money in the world wouldn't be enough to convince anyone that you aren't perfectly stupid. You're defining Democratic and Republican as if they were some unchanging philosophies instead of parties whose tenets have mutated over time. North Korea has both 'Democratic' and 'Republic' in its official name. What does that tell you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're defining Democratic and Republican as if they were some unchanging philosophies instead of parties whose tenets have mutated over time.

Jefferson Founded the Republican Party in 1792 to stand for freedom from liberal government. Modern Republicans are identical!! Where is the change???? WHy did you forget to tell us????????? Doesn't that tell you something?????????????????

North Korea has both 'Democratic' and 'Republic' in its official name. What does that tell you?

dear, please be serious. Kim Jong un and Joseph Stalin are/were both big big government liberals no matter what the names!! Our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I think it's a good idea. But I do also think that every 2 years for Federal elections, radio, print, and television should have to give free air time to the serious candidates. Your idea is to attack the source of the money; I'd like to help eliminate the need for the moeny in the first place.

But why stop at Federal elections? And who decides the standard for a "serious" candidate? I envision such a scenario as leading to a great deal of complexity, and the loopholes that come with it. Seems more efficient to make sure that nobody spends more than a fixed amount on a single campaign.

It would require a system of town halls and open mikes with pre-primaries to determine which party affiliates and independents could go further.

While spending no more than a fixed amount would be more efficient, it solves neither the cheating problem nor the fact that those who can bundle the most donations will get preferential treatment.

If every campaign has open books about what it spends, cheating is difficult. The total amount would have to be low enough not to matter. Of course, media buys from PACs or other organizations that support or attack any candidate would have to be banned as well.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If every campaign has open books about what it spends, cheating is difficult. The total amount would have to be low enough not to matter. Of course, media buys from PACs or other organizations that support or attack any candidate would have to be banned as well.

That would work well. Then the media could determine what the public knows about candidates and make sure that information damaging to party candidates never saw the light of day, without fear that usurpers would contradict them.

Say, why not just have MSNBC appoint out rulers, and save the farce? The result is the same either way.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

If every campaign has open books about what it spends, cheating is difficult. The total amount would have to be low enough not to matter. Of course, media buys from PACs or other organizations that support or attack any candidate would have to be banned as well.

That would work well. Then the media could determine what the public knows about candidates and make sure that information damaging to party candidates never saw the light of day, without fear that usurpers would contradict them.

Say, why not just have MSNBC appoint out rulers, and save the farce? The result is the same either way.

The media doesn't have anywhere near as much control over information as you think. Genuine scandals always leak out.

But if you prefer that MSNBC appoint the next emperor of America, I'm happy to be the appointee.

 

[FA_Q2]

But why stop at Federal elections? And who decides the standard for a "serious" candidate? I envision such a scenario as leading to a great deal of complexity, and the loopholes that come with it. Seems more efficient to make sure that nobody spends more than a fixed amount on a single campaign.

It would require a system of town halls and open mikes with pre-primaries to determine which party affiliates and independents could go further.

While spending no more than a fixed amount would be more efficient, it solves neither the cheating problem nor the fact that those who can bundle the most donations will get preferential treatment.

If every campaign has open books about what it spends, cheating is difficult. The total amount would have to be low enough not to matter. Of course, media buys from PACs or other organizations that support or attack any candidate would have to be banned as well.

And here you start running into the problems. Bas speech because… yes just because.

It is wrong. Simple as that. While public funding sounds like a good idea and I am not necessarily against the idea, I am firmly against some asinine bureaucrat sitting in an office deciding what I am aloud to say and not say.

What do films that are weary of a particular political ideology get banned as well? What about the Obama slam movie that came out recently? Are you going to ban that movie until after an election if it comes out at the wrong time? What about billboards? On and on the list goes where you now have people subjectively deciding whether or not they can speak out about a politician. It is nuts.

Further, and the real problem with this type of ‘reform,’ you run into the fact that politicians are going to be bought anyway. You can’t stop that if you closed all the financial loopholes. They can hire them on after like Gingrich. Give them ‘gifts’ or do a thousand things that would achieve the same goal. The problem is not that corporate interests are buying politicians – that is a symptom. You need to cure the cause and that is the government getting so far into business that it is now essentially picking the companies that are going to survive. You end the corporate interests and control of government without ending the government involvement in corporate business. You either have them separated or you deal with the corruption that they bring when married.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The media doesn't have anywhere near as much control over information as you think. Genuine scandals always leak out.

If you succeed in silencing PACs and other sources, then you provide the media with exclusive control. Since the media is simply part of the democratic party, that would ensure one party rule.

Thank god Citizens United affirmed the right of dissenters to provide alternative views.

But if you prefer that MSNBC appoint the next emperor of America, I'm happy to be the appointee.

Sorry, Obama got crowned first.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

It would require a system of town halls and open mikes with pre-primaries to determine which party affiliates and independents could go further.

While spending no more than a fixed amount would be more efficient, it solves neither the cheating problem nor the fact that those who can bundle the most donations will get preferential treatment.

If every campaign has open books about what it spends, cheating is difficult. The total amount would have to be low enough not to matter. Of course, media buys from PACs or other organizations that support or attack any candidate would have to be banned as well.

And here you start running into the problems. Bas speech because… yes just because.

It is wrong. Simple as that. While public funding sounds like a good idea and I am not necessarily against the idea, I am firmly against some asinine bureaucrat sitting in an office deciding what I am aloud to say and not say.

What do films that are weary of a particular political ideology get banned as well? What about the Obama slam movie that came out recently? Are you going to ban that movie until after an election if it comes out at the wrong time? What about billboards? On and on the list goes where you now have people subjectively deciding whether or not they can speak out about a politician. It is nuts.

People could still speak; they just wouldn't be allowed to spend money to do it. (Hypothetically, of course. The Constitutional surgery required would need to be done very damned carefully.)

Further, and the real problem with this type of ‘reform,’ you run into the fact that politicians are going to be bought anyway. You can’t stop that if you closed all the financial loopholes. They can hire them on after like Gingrich. Give them ‘gifts’ or do a thousand things that would achieve the same goal. The problem is not that corporate interests are buying politicians – that is a symptom. You need to cure the cause and that is the government getting so far into business that it is now essentially picking the companies that are going to survive. You end the corporate interests and control of government without ending the government involvement in corporate business. You either have them separated or you deal with the corruption that they bring when married.

But how do you "separate" them when the government makes and enforces laws dealing with corporate conduct?

 

[tjvh]

If the Constitution were yours to change... Thankfully it isn't, so it really doesn't matter.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

If the Constitution were yours to change... Thankfully it isn't, so it really doesn't matter.

Taking the time to consider what could be changed and how, OTOH, does matter.

 

[FA_Q2]

People could still speak; they just wouldn't be allowed to spend money to do it. (Hypothetically, of course. The Constitutional surgery required would need to be done very damned carefully.)

Which means that government now control the venue that you use to speak with and that inherently is against speech. Speech in no way should be considered to only include opening your mouth and letting sounds tumble out. Speech is, in its most basic conceptualization is the communication of thoughts and ideas. That most certainly includes the venue that you use to communicate with whether it is a book, TV, pamphlet, bull horn or interpretive dance. I don&#8217;t care how you want to speak, it should all be protected. Once you give the government control over the venue that you are able to use you have effectively given control to speech itself. Further, that power tends to track further, not in the direction of freedom.

But how do you "separate" them when the government makes and enforces laws dealing with corporate conduct?

Good question. We need to get out of that game for the most part. There still needs to be basic regulation in place that deals with the safety of the public. A company should not be dumping toxic waste into the local river or selling lighters that explode for example but the vast majority of all regulation is not about that. I&#8217;ll give you an example: I used to own and operate a daycare for a few years. Regulations that cover that industry include the proper technique to wiping a baby&#8217;s ass (and yes, there were inspectors that would check) the type of climbing equipment I had to have, the number of stacking toys, nesting toys, books, the temperature of the water at the sink, the color of food served, number of times that I served the food including the actual time on the clock, how much food the child themselves (as there was another reg that required the children to serve their own food) put on their own plat and on and on and on. Most of the regulators themselves did not know what was in the regs. Almost all of that can go &#8211; the CUSTOMER should be making those calls. Regulations have destroyed the competition because it is almost impossible for a startup to actually start up. The big players are thoroughly insulated from competition. They lobby to keep this up. Next, the tax code needs to be redone to give companies a simple flat tax on realized profits. Zero special interest deductions. That means green energy gets nothing. That means Oil gets nothing. No company gets any kind of corporate welfare. No dollar should ever leave the government coffers and be sent to a company unless the government is purchasing a product. Along with that, no law should lock customers to a single product.

Essentially, you remove the interests of companies in government when companies stop PROFITING from that involvement weather that is through the manipulation of coming regulation, elimination of competing products or the direct payment to those companies. If the government sticks to simply protecting the people from corporate misconduct then there will be no reason to try and manipulate the government and it would go a LONG way in reducing the government corruption that we currently experience.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

People could still speak; they just wouldn't be allowed to spend money to do it. (Hypothetically, of course. The Constitutional surgery required would need to be done very damned carefully.)

Which means that government now control the venue that you use to speak with and that inherently is against speech. Speech in no way should be considered to only include opening your mouth and letting sounds tumble out. Speech is, in its most basic conceptualization is the communication of thoughts and ideas. That most certainly includes the venue that you use to communicate with whether it is a book, TV, pamphlet, bull horn or interpretive dance. I don’t care how you want to speak, it should all be protected. Once you give the government control over the venue that you are able to use you have effectively given control to speech itself. Further, that power tends to track further, not in the direction of freedom.

Of course, the more you can flood the avenues of communication with money, the more you skew speech in favor of the wealthiest special interests. Which is inherently against the direction of freedom also. Maybe it's the more tolerable option, but don't take that variable for granted.

But how do you "separate" them when the government makes and enforces laws dealing with corporate conduct?

Good question. We need to get out of that game for the most part. There still needs to be basic regulation in place that deals with the safety of the public. A company should not be dumping toxic waste into the local river or selling lighters that explode for example but the vast majority of all regulation is not about that. I’ll give you an example: I used to own and operate a daycare for a few years. Regulations that cover that industry include the proper technique to wiping a baby’s ass (and yes, there were inspectors that would check) the type of climbing equipment I had to have, the number of stacking toys, nesting toys, books, the temperature of the water at the sink, the color of food served, number of times that I served the food including the actual time on the clock, how much food the child themselves (as there was another reg that required the children to serve their own food) put on their own plat and on and on and on. Most of the regulators themselves did not know what was in the regs. Almost all of that can go – the CUSTOMER should be making those calls. Regulations have destroyed the competition because it is almost impossible for a startup to actually start up. The big players are thoroughly insulated from competition. They lobby to keep this up. Next, the tax code needs to be redone to give companies a simple flat tax on realized profits. Zero special interest deductions. That means green energy gets nothing. That means Oil gets nothing. No company gets any kind of corporate welfare. No dollar should ever leave the government coffers and be sent to a company unless the government is purchasing a product. Along with that, no law should lock customers to a single product.

Essentially, you remove the interests of companies in government when companies stop PROFITING from that involvement weather that is through the manipulation of coming regulation, elimination of competing products or the direct payment to those companies. If the government sticks to simply protecting the people from corporate misconduct then there will be no reason to try and manipulate the government and it would go a LONG way in reducing the government corruption that we currently experience.

In general I'm in favor of letting corporations (and other businesses) sink or swim on their own merits. However, corporations will still be more than happy to try to manipulate the government into letting them endanger the public if they think it will be profitable. Supposedly that's what most of the regulations are for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

People could still speak; they just wouldn't be allowed to spend money to do it. (Hypothetically, of course. The Constitutional surgery required would need to be done very damned carefully.)

Oh, kewl.

So they could stand on a street corner and shout, while the NY Times campaigns for the Obamanumists with no retort from the peasants.

You've got it all figured out - except that 1st amendment crap - but that's what this thread is about. So, your proposal for changing the constitution is to revoke the 1st amendment. (And no doubt the 9 that follow it as well.)

You're in luck, Obama shares your vision.

 

[FA_Q2]

Of course, the more you can flood the avenues of communication with money, the more you skew speech in favor of the wealthiest special interests. Which is inherently against the direction of freedom also. Maybe it's the more tolerable option, but don't take that variable for granted.

I didn’t. That is not counter freedom though. That is counter equality and I am not a believer in end equality. I believe in equal opportunity but equal outcome is a misnomer and is never going to happen. There are always going to be people that have a greater influence than others. That is cold hard fact.

It is defiantly more tolerable than giving that power to government but it certainly is not counter to freedom nor is money the grate speech equalizer. The last election is a good example of this where Romney outspent Obama but Obama spent far wiser and disseminated his message better. That is MORE important than money. ON that same aspect, I could claim that one person that has better friends or speaks more eloquently than another is ‘counter’ to freedom because he has some advantage over the other. That is false and I hope that it is easy to see. In the same aspect, money is not counter to freedom.

In general I'm in favor of letting corporations (and other businesses) sink or swim on their own merits. However, corporations will still be more than happy to try to manipulate the government into letting them endanger the public if they think it will be profitable. Supposedly that's what most of the regulations are for.

Well, no that’s not true at all. You have to remember that hurting your customers is inherently NOT profitable. There are instance where it can still be profitable like, for instance, fast food or cigarettes BUT then you also have to understand that influencing politics is an extremely costly affair. You are not going to get a better, more profitable outcome by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a campaign to change a few simple regulations even if they are favorable. Companies do this now because we are not talking a few simple regulations. We are talking MASSIVE regulatory agencies AND massive tax breaks AND government contracts AND massive subsidies. They invest the hundreds of millions + because they have all these to draw on. Without them, it no longer becomes profitable for them to try and buy elections – even more on point when you realize that they have to buy both candidates to ensure a victory.