Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS and let the Reps know it's "one man, one vote", NOT "one dollar, one vote".
George Will - "Beware when the political class preens about protecting us from “special interests.” The most powerful, persistent and anti-constitutional interest is the political class."
GEORGE WILL: In disclose act, a free speech clamp » Standard-Times
The Supreme Court has blocked implementation of Arizona’s Clean Elections Act. Under it, candidates who accept taxpayer funding of their campaigns receive extra infusions of tax dollars to match funds raised by competitors who choose to rely on voluntary contributions. The law punishes people who do not take taxpayer funds. Its purpose, which the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional, is to restrict spending — and the dissemination of speech that spending enables — to equalize candidates’ financial assets. This favors incumbents, who have the myriad advantages of office. And it is patently intended to cripple candidates funded by voluntary contributions: Who wants to give to a candidate when the donation will trigger a nearly dollar-for-dollar gift to the candidate — or candidates — the contributor opposes? Just as the new health care legislation is a step toward elimination, by slow strangulation, of private health insurance and establishment of government as the “single payer,” laws like Arizona’s are steps toward total public financing of campaigns — government monopolizing funding for campaigns that determine the control of government.
Public financing simply gives a different person the advantage, mainly the incumbent over any challengers. As for congressional "insider trading", it should rightly be outlawed; those seeking federal office should be required to deposit any personal funds into a blind trust or at least not be allowed to own individual stocks. That's just common sense.
The incumbent already has more of an advantage in the current system than they'd have under public financing. Sure they'd still have the visibility of the office but, they'd only have as much money to play with as their opponent and wouldn't have access to people willing to give money to anyone in power, regardless of ideology, rather than a "maybe" down the road.
The incumbent already has more of an advantage in the current system than they'd have under public financing. Sure they'd still have the visibility of the office but, they'd only have as much money to play with as their opponent and wouldn't have access to people willing to give money to anyone in power, regardless of ideology, rather than a "maybe" down the road.
I think many of those incumbents voted out in 2010 would disagree with you. Mandated public funding is a suppression of free speech, and seems a bit too much like the fox guarding the henhouse. Incumbents have the advantage when things are going relatively smoothly and the electorate becomes complacent. It seems pretty clear that when things aren't going the direction the people want it to go, ultimately they listen to someone else's ideas. Why shouldn't that someone else be allowed to spread that message as widely as they want (or can get support for)?
The incumbent already has more of an advantage in the current system than they'd have under public financing. Sure they'd still have the visibility of the office but, they'd only have as much money to play with as their opponent and wouldn't have access to people willing to give money to anyone in power, regardless of ideology, rather than a "maybe" down the road.
I think many of those incumbents voted out in 2010 would disagree with you. Mandated public funding is a suppression of free speech, and seems a bit too much like the fox guarding the henhouse. Incumbents have the advantage when things are going relatively smoothly and the electorate becomes complacent. It seems pretty clear that when things aren't going the direction the people want it to go, ultimately they listen to someone else's ideas. Why shouldn't that someone else be allowed to spread that message as widely as they want (or can get support for)?
Then they should run for office. Whoever speaks for the candidate, should be working with the candidate. Why should we allow millions to be given by a few to the people who will write laws for the many? Who do you think comes out ahead in that scenario? If money is speech, as you seem to imply, why should some get a megaphone while others are on mute?
I think many of those incumbents voted out in 2010 would disagree with you. Mandated public funding is a suppression of free speech, and seems a bit too much like the fox guarding the henhouse. Incumbents have the advantage when things are going relatively smoothly and the electorate becomes complacent. It seems pretty clear that when things aren't going the direction the people want it to go, ultimately they listen to someone else's ideas. Why shouldn't that someone else be allowed to spread that message as widely as they want (or can get support for)?
Then they should run for office. Whoever speaks for the candidate, should be working with the candidate. Why should we allow millions to be given by a few to the people who will write laws for the many? Who do you think comes out ahead in that scenario? If money is speech, as you seem to imply, why should some get a megaphone while others are on mute?
I am assuming the "someone else" is running for office. Why do you want him/her to be limited to spending only what the government allows? Who do you see coming out ahead in that scenario? Entrenched bureaucracy will win that every time.
It also seems somewhat cynical to assume in all cases that a candidate votes based on campaign contributions. It seems every bit as likely to me that the campaign contributions come as a result of the contributors' support of policies already espoused by the candidate, not the other way around. Money helps spread that message, but doesn't necessarily imply quid pro quo.
Then they should run for office. Whoever speaks for the candidate, should be working with the candidate. Why should we allow millions to be given by a few to the people who will write laws for the many? Who do you think comes out ahead in that scenario? If money is speech, as you seem to imply, why should some get a megaphone while others are on mute?
I am assuming the "someone else" is running for office. Why do you want him/her to be limited to spending only what the government allows? Who do you see coming out ahead in that scenario? Entrenched bureaucracy will win that every time.
It also seems somewhat cynical to assume in all cases that a candidate votes based on campaign contributions. It seems every bit as likely to me that the campaign contributions come as a result of the contributors' support of policies already espoused by the candidate, not the other way around. Money helps spread that message, but doesn't necessarily imply quid pro quo.
I'm sorry, but have you been paying attention? Quid pro quo is EXACTLY what's happening. Why would commercial interests contribute because of policy positions? They're in it for the money and making sure they get their perks. Cut off the money and you'd have to get bribed the old-fashioned way with the old-fashioned punishment, prison, instead of the new-fashion, re-election.
I am assuming the "someone else" is running for office. Why do you want him/her to be limited to spending only what the government allows? Who do you see coming out ahead in that scenario? Entrenched bureaucracy will win that every time.
It also seems somewhat cynical to assume in all cases that a candidate votes based on campaign contributions. It seems every bit as likely to me that the campaign contributions come as a result of the contributors' support of policies already espoused by the candidate, not the other way around. Money helps spread that message, but doesn't necessarily imply quid pro quo.
I'm sorry, but have you been paying attention? Quid pro quo is EXACTLY what's happening. Why would commercial interests contribute because of policy positions? They're in it for the money and making sure they get their perks. Cut off the money and you'd have to get bribed the old-fashioned way with the old-fashioned punishment, prison, instead of the new-fashion, re-election.
How can you conclude that with any degree of certainty? The answer is you can't. If Candidate Jones comes out on a green energy platform and has voter support, green companies are going to support him. Why? Because he's already made it clear that if he is elected he will support green energy. Where is the quid pro quo?
Why would they support a newbie, if an incumbent is already in place? It doesn't make economic sense to spend money on a "maybe" when a sure thing is practically begging for your attention. Money talks and I feel that there's only one way to go; we supply the money and they'll have to listen to us instead of special interests.
The degree of certainty I'm aiming for is 100%. If candidates can't accept contributions, then they'll have to make all those decisions on their merits and not because they need campaign dough.
Why would they support a newbie, if an incumbent is already in place? It doesn't make economic sense to spend money on a "maybe" when a sure thing is practically begging for your attention. Money talks and I feel that there's only one way to go; we supply the money and they'll have to listen to us instead of special interests.
The degree of certainty I'm aiming for is 100%. If candidates can't accept contributions, then they'll have to make all those decisions on their merits and not because they need campaign dough.
Maybe because the incumbent is for something else? You can't envision a situation where an incumbent supports big oil and a "newbie" supports green energy? Obviously if there is no difference in the policies of two candidates for public office then it's just a beauty contest, and the money means nothing. And in any case, government officials and party faithful will find a way to ensure the incumbents' victory if they have control of a public funding process. Who qualifies for funds? Who decides who qualifies for funds? Does everyone get the same amount regardless of levels of support? Believe me, the maze of rules that would follow would be more twisted than Debbie Wasserman Schultz's gerrymandered district:
No thanks; I'll take the status quo.
There's a maze of rules now. I'd have open debates regularly, sub-primaries to determine levels of support for party affiliates or any independents and equal distribution of funds from there. The side effect of this would be to free up incumbents' time to actually do their job, instead of spending so much of it asking for contributions that often have strings attached.
There's a maze of rules now. I'd have open debates regularly, sub-primaries to determine levels of support for party affiliates or any independents and equal distribution of funds from there. The side effect of this would be to free up incumbents' time to actually do their job, instead of spending so much of it asking for contributions that often have strings attached.
I wonder what kind of politics we'd get, if people the people were heard, instead of special interests. They still be able to lobby, just not directly or indirectly contribute to campaigns and skew their arguments with cash.
There's a maze of rules now. I'd have open debates regularly, sub-primaries to determine levels of support for party affiliates or any independents and equal distribution of funds from there. The side effect of this would be to free up incumbents' time to actually do their job, instead of spending so much of it asking for contributions that often have strings attached.
I wonder what kind of politics we'd get, if people the people were heard, instead of special interests. They still be able to lobby, just not directly or indirectly contribute to campaigns and skew their arguments with cash.
What, nobody likes my idea? No one even wants to call me an idiot?
I wonder what kind of politics we'd get, if people the people were heard, instead of special interests. They still be able to lobby, just not directly or indirectly contribute to campaigns and skew their arguments with cash.
What, nobody likes my idea? No one even wants to call me an idiot?
Single issue bills, while a good idea, don't solve the problem of the auction of votes to special interests for campaign contributions.
Single issue bills, while a good idea, don't solve the problem of the auction of votes to special interests for campaign contributions.
A good article about what can happen when campaign financing gets out of control.
Forgetting a key lesson from Watergate? - CNN.com
Single issue bills, while a good idea, don't solve the problem of the auction of votes to special interests for campaign contributions.
A good article about what can happen when campaign financing gets out of control.
Forgetting a key lesson from Watergate? - CNN.com
Are we going to see the Pope contributing to a PAC now?
There is a curious problem here, human nature and its use of the free market, one has to remember corruption is cured by the same market that creates the problem. So round and round we go and where we stop nobody who benefits knows, actually the rest don't know either.
"The Center For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington released its second annual survey of the twenty most corrupt members of Congress, aptly named "Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch)."
CREW inventoried the "transgressions" of each member of Congress under the microscope of federal law and congressional rules."
Some highlights:
- The three most corrupt Senate members are the infamous Conrad Burns (R-MT), Bill Frist (R-TN), and Rick Santorum (R-PA)
- Seventeen of the twenty "Most Corrupt" politicians are Republicans
- Four of the "Five Members To Watch" are Republicans
- All but one of the 25 Members of Congress included on the list are up for re-election
CREW's Most Corrupt Members of Congress
Press | CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith
There is a curious problem here, human nature and its use of the free market, one has to remember corruption is cured by the same market that creates the problem. So round and round we go and where we stop nobody who benefits knows, actually the rest don't know either.
The Center For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington released its second annual survey of the twenty most corrupt members of Congress, aptly named "Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch)."
CREW inventoried the "transgressions" of each member of Congress under the microscope of federal law and congressional rules."
Some highlights:
- The three most corrupt Senate members are the infamous Conrad Burns (R-MT), Bill Frist (R-TN), and Rick Santorum (R-PA)
- Seventeen of the twenty "Most Corrupt" politicians are Republicans
- Four of the "Five Members To Watch" are Republicans
- All but one of the 25 Members of Congress included on the list are up for re-election
CREW's Most Corrupt Members of Congress
Press | CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith
