Money for Campaigns

Palomar · 2004-03-16 13:12:50

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ts_money_1]Click

*John Kerry is trying to raise $10 million over the next 10 days, to get in the neighborhood of $100 million.

Bush already has $163 million.

This is probably the most un-American thing I've ever said, but this just is not fair. Okay, so Kerry's my man and I suppose this is whining.

It's still The Golden Rule, isn't it (most gold, rules)?

Shouldn't the U.S. Treasury simply hand out $80 million to each candidate, flat rate, they can't use any more $$ than that and "may the best man win"?

I know...I'm probably totally wrong.

I think it should be a fair fight...fought by fair and equal resources.

Go ahead and blast me.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-03-16 13:45:39

I think it's a wonderful idea.

$80 million dollars, from the collected taxes of all hard working Americans, going to fund any and all Presidential candidates in a fair and equal contest.

So the Green Party gets 80 million for their candidate. The Republican's and Democrats are limited to 80 million each. David Duke may decide that the KKK needs a Presidential candidate, so he will get some money too. Or perhaps Al Sharpton will form the Black Alliance, and run under their banner with the 80 million. Nader gets 80 million to run amok. And I can start a party to run a foreign born US Citizen as a Presidential candidate on the Anti-Cobra platform!

The more the merrier I say. :laugh:

Bill White · 2004-03-16 13:49:11

Neil deGrasse Tyson is my space hero of the month.

Constance Adams remains my space heroine of the month.

Robert Zubrin is hero emeritus although the "cowardice" thing was rather over the top.

Anyway, I am very troubled by my own partisan feelings as I believe Neil Tyson is spot on when he says sapce policy needs to be bi-partisan if we are to get anywhere.

Jeff Foust has a great article here:

[http://www.thespacereview.com/article/116/1]http://www.thespacereview.com/article/116/1

Palomar · 2004-03-16 13:49:54

I think it's a wonderful idea.
$80 million dollars, from the collected taxes of all hard working Americans, going to fund any and all Presidential candidates in a fair and equal contest.
So the Green Party gets 80 million for their candidate. The Republican's and Democrats are limited to 80 million each. David Duke may decide that the KKK needs a Presidential candidate, so he will get some money too. Or perhaps Al Sharpton will form the Black Alliance, and run under their banner with the 80 million. Nader gets 80 million to run amok. And I can start a party to run a foreign born US Citizen as a Presidential candidate on the Anti-Cobra platform!
The more the merrier I say. :laugh:

You're right, Clark. :-\

I was thinking along the lines of Democrats and Republicans exclusively...

Never mind!

I need a vacation...

--Cindy

clark · 2004-03-16 13:51:26

Bill wins the award for "derailing the topic of the thread the fastest" award.

His post was insightful, informational, and wholly unneccessary.

Careful children, there are gentle trolls at play... :laugh:

clark · 2004-03-16 13:54:13

LOL!

Even in agreement does the lady disagree with me.

Alt2War · 2004-03-16 19:17:29

well jumpin jesus, don't let public funding of campaign finance get derailed so quick.

I'm of the opinion that it is essential for the future of our democracy. I dont think I need to explain the amout of influence money has on american politics.

It's very easy to solve the above problem. In fact it is in place right now for federal matching funds.

Simply require any party's candidate to manage to swing 5% of the national votes. If it can swing 5% on it's own, all future presidential bids will be publicly funded, equally.

The green party, for all the noise it stirred up in 2000, has yet to garner 5% in a presidential election.

So there you go, problem solved.

To cut the costs required, to lower the bill to under 80 mil, require public airwaves to distribute equal blocks of time each qualifying candidate. A large portion of the costs of running a campaign comes from media buys, and the public owns the airwaves.

Palomar · 2004-03-16 20:09:03

It's very easy to solve the above problem. In fact it is in place right now for federal matching funds.
Simply require any party's candidate to manage to swing 5% of the national votes. If it can swing 5% on it's own, all future presidential bids will be publicly funded, equally.
The green party, for all the noise it stirred up in 2000, has yet to garner 5% in a presidential election.
So there you go, problem solved.
To cut the costs required, to lower the bill to under 80 mil, require public airwaves to distribute equal blocks of time each qualifying candidate. A large portion of the costs of running a campaign comes from media buys, and the public owns the airwaves.

*Interesting, Alt!

Thanks for your input.

It'd be nice if Byron, Josh and Cobra Commander would chime in on the issue, if they're so inclined (hint, hint).

--Cindy

Byron · 2004-03-17 05:48:49

Personally, I think there should be a strict limit to how much a political party can spend on campaigning...let's say a cap of $75 million for each presidential election. Furthermore, I think there should be an outright ban on all political TV and radio advertisments less than 30 days prior to the election, while equal blocks of airtime is allocated to each candidate to pitch their viewpoints, as well as having weekly debates, etc.

Alt's idea of the 5% "qualifier" makes sense as well, imo, although I'd be concerned about the risks of a bunch of minor parties reaching that magic 5% threshold someday (if enough people get fed up with the Republicans and Democrats..hehe.)

Anyone else have any ideas?...

B

dicktice · 2004-03-17 10:27:41

Well--the idea of a re-run if there isn't enough difference in the popular vote to produce a convincing winner. . . .

clark · 2004-03-17 10:36:43

Simply require any party's candidate to manage to swing 5% of the national votes. If it can swing 5% on it's own, all future presidential bids will be publicly funded, equally.

So at most, we would be looking at a possible 20 person ticket for a Presidential Election. The Chrisitian Right has their President, the Black Seperatists have theirs, the Mexi-Cali's have theirs (which calls for the return of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada back to Mexico), etc.

Now that we have upset the apple cart, what might we see?

Well, we could see so many contestants that no one canadite ever wins a majority of the vote. We could see a President elected that only garners 20-30 percent of the vote, while the rest is split among the various parties.

France almost had a problem with some radical getting into office becuase of something like this. I'm not saying the idea is bad ( I did agree), but this kind of change requires a reappraisal of the entire system- the whole winner take all.

There is nothing wrong with changing words, or laws, or procedures- but when you start to change the actual system that underlies everything else, you need to be damn careful.

Besides, the canadites would only get a certain amount of money- which they would receive from their Party- so donors will just give money to the Party, which will control the Presidential Canadite (you want to be our canadite? Play ball, or go home)

Alt2War · 2004-03-17 12:05:35

So at most, we would be looking at a possible 20 person ticket for a Presidential Election. The Chrisitian Right has their President, the Black Seperatists have theirs, the Mexi-Cali's have theirs (which calls for the return of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada back to Mexico), etc.

20 person Publicly Funded. It is not very likely. Not at all.

Parties like the Greens and Ross Perot's Independant party had nowhere near 5% after 8+ years of work.

Money is not the only thing that is needed to make a president, though it is in the top 3 of requirements.

Well, we could see so many contestants that no one canadite ever wins a majority of the vote. We could see a President elected that only garners 20-30 percent of the vote, while the rest is split among the various parties.

Your stating an inherent flaw in the US Constitution, not campaign finance reform in general.

If just one 3rd party finally gains 10-20% popularity, or just a few key states, than the president will always be elected by the House.

What we need in this nation is Insant Runoffs similar to Austrailia, where you vote or your top 3 candidates, instead of one.

This will also ease the need for "Stratigic Voting" which is a major. major poblem with american democracy, as far as I'm concerned.

clark · 2004-03-17 12:23:31

20 person Publicly Funded. It is not very likely. Not at all.

Okay, not likely, but possible. It becomes more plausible since all Presidental contenders are limited, and provided, the same resources to be heard. That is the goal of leveling the playing field, which means smaller groups can form to gain enough backing to support their minority canadite of choice.

Parties like the Greens and Ross Perot's Independant party had nowhere near 5% after 8+ years of work.

Which is the result of the current system, which we are talking about turning on it's head! The Green's and Perot's of the America will have an easier time if the current big dogs are limited in their resources. This system is for those who are trying to get in, not those who are already established

Money is not the only thing that is needed to make a president, though it is in the top 3 of requirements.

I agree. Karl Rove helps.

Your stating an inherent flaw in the US Constitution, not campaign finance reform in general.

That's the freaking point! It's easier to adjust law than the Constitution (just ask Cobra). This kind of change will magnify the flaw inherent in the Constitution, as such, we eithwer have to change the Constitution (the system, remember, my previous post), or figure out another way to implement this idea.

If just one 3rd party finally gains 10-20% popularity, or just a few key states, than the president will always be elected by the House.

More of the system... the electoral college, eh? Well, here we are talking about limiting the amount used for running for President, but what about the rest of the federal represenatives? Since they will in effect be choosing the President (assuming your hypothesis of 10-20%), they can effectively deny the will of the people to choose a third party canadite (since the House is controlled by just TWO parties).

See, it's starting to unravel. again, I'm not really against the idea itself, but making changes like this, to the actual system that underlies the process, we need to go in with our eyes and ears open to look for the unintended consquences that are lurking.

It's big idea to get your head around.

Alt2War · 2004-03-17 13:11:16

20 person Publicly Funded. It is not very likely. Not at all.
Okay, not likely, but possible. It becomes more plausible since all Presidental contenders are limited, and provided, the same resources to be heard. That is the goal of leveling the playing field, which means smaller groups can form to gain enough backing to support their minority canadite of choice.
Parties like the Greens and Ross Perot's Independant party had nowhere near 5% after 8+ years of work.
Which is the result of the current system, which we are talking about turning on it's head! The Green's and Perot's of the America will have an easier time if the current big dogs are limited in their resources. This system is for those who are trying to get in, not those who are already established
Money is not the only thing that is needed to make a president, though it is in the top 3 of requirements.
I agree. Karl Rove helps.
Your stating an inherent flaw in the US Constitution, not campaign finance reform in general.
That's the freaking point! It's easier to adjust law than the Constitution (just ask Cobra). This kind of change will magnify the flaw inherent in the Constitution, as such, we eithwer have to change the Constitution (the system, remember, my previous post), or figure out another way to implement this idea.
If just one 3rd party finally gains 10-20% popularity, or just a few key states, than the president will always be elected by the House.
More of the system... the electoral college, eh? Well, here we are talking about limiting the amount used for running for President, but what about the rest of the federal represenatives? Since they will in effect be choosing the President (assuming your hypothesis of 10-20%), they can effectively deny the will of the people to choose a third party canadite (since the House is controlled by just TWO parties).
See, it's starting to unravel. again, I'm not really against the idea itself, but making changes like this, to the actual system that underlies the process, we need to go in with our eyes and ears open to look for the unintended consquences that are lurking.
It's big idea to get your head around.

Short of Ammending the Constitution, Campaign Financing of National Elections might be our best bet.

Yes it will indeed highlight some of the inherent flaws of our constitution in it's implimentation.

Yes a viable 3rd party will completely break down our system for electing a president.

But amending the constitution it this point seems unlikely.

What i would prefer is that we keep our current campaing finance laws in place of federal fund matching, but remove the option to "Opt Out"

clark · 2004-03-17 13:14:19

What i would prefer is that we keep our current campaing finance laws in place of federal fund matching, but remove the option to "Opt Out"

So third party canadites, who are not eligible for matching funds, they would be able to outspend the established parties canadites? Or, they can only spend as much as the cap?

Either way, you are putting somebody at a disadvantage, which means the ideal of leveling the playing field is placed out of reach. I don't see how this would be any more equal than our current system.

Algol · 2004-03-17 15:34:27

How would you take into account people campaigning during primaries? Would the candidates have access to the $80m? Or would they have to raise their own money, and if so wouldnt that work out as extar campaigning money for the candidate who won the nomination? ???

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-17 16:39:05

How would you take into account people campaigning during primaries? Would the candidates have access to the $80m? Or would they have to raise their own money, and if so wouldnt that work out as extar campaigning money for the candidate who won the nomination?

Excellent point, glad I skipped ahead.

So if we want to get the money out of politics, we need to get rid of primaries! Or raise taxes. Big time. Who wants to campaign on this?

But on a basic level, this whole premise is, well, stupid. See, the thing about free speech is that it isn't fair. If I have more people that want to give me money for a campaign than, say clark for his anti-Cobra platform (which is of course doomed to electoral defeat ) than what justification does the government have for muzzling that, the free expression of citizens? When you give government such control of campaigns you are walking a very dangerous line.

And we're already crossing it, thank you Senator McCain.

clark · 2004-03-17 17:21:12

That's what I get for pandering to the non-voting foreign constituency.

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-17 17:45:33

That's what I get for pandering to the non-voting foreign constituency.

It's not entirely your fault, I've got Blackshirts out stuffing the ballot boxes.

Alt2War · 2004-03-18 12:08:16

How would you take into account people campaigning during primaries? Would the candidates have access to the $80m? Or would they have to raise their own money, and if so wouldnt that work out as extar campaigning money for the candidate who won the nomination? ???

Current campaing finance laws already cover the primaries as well.

A smaller amount of matching funds is provided for each primary runner, up to a cap. I think its in the $25-30 million range.

This primary runner cannot spend more than the cap without incruing fines.

They can opt out of the cap, but then do not recieve matching funds.

The matching funds match each individuals donation up to somthing like $500. The individual contribution limit is $2,000.

What this does is increase the value of the small doner in campaigns that accept federal matching funds.

After the nominee is selected at the primaries, the cap goes up to somthing like 80 mil. and is matched.

This is all paid for by an optional fund you can put a dollar into on your income tax form. It's optional for the individual to contribute.

This is your McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, and it was a good step.

The biggest problem with it is that it is easily side stepped, you can simply opt out. But should you opt out your opponents do essentialy get to double their money. This means quite little when the difference in campaign funds range in the 9 digits.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-16 13:12:50

Re: Money for Campaigns

#2 2004-03-16 13:45:39

Re: Money for Campaigns

#3 2004-03-16 13:49:11

Re: Money for Campaigns

#4 2004-03-16 13:49:54

Re: Money for Campaigns

#5 2004-03-16 13:51:26

Re: Money for Campaigns

#6 2004-03-16 13:54:13

Re: Money for Campaigns

#7 2004-03-16 19:17:29

Re: Money for Campaigns

#8 2004-03-16 20:09:03

Re: Money for Campaigns

#9 2004-03-17 05:48:49

Re: Money for Campaigns

#10 2004-03-17 10:27:41

Re: Money for Campaigns

#11 2004-03-17 10:36:43

Re: Money for Campaigns

#12 2004-03-17 12:05:35

Re: Money for Campaigns

#13 2004-03-17 12:23:31

Re: Money for Campaigns

#14 2004-03-17 13:11:16

Re: Money for Campaigns

#15 2004-03-17 13:14:19

Re: Money for Campaigns

#16 2004-03-17 15:34:27

Re: Money for Campaigns

#17 2004-03-17 16:39:05

Re: Money for Campaigns

#18 2004-03-17 17:21:12

Re: Money for Campaigns

#19 2004-03-17 17:45:33

Re: Money for Campaigns

#20 2004-03-18 12:08:16

Re: Money for Campaigns

Board footer