Campaign Finance Reform

[barfbag]

The problem with limiting federal candidates to how much money they can raise and spend is that donations go to Super PACs, 527's, and "independent" organizations which are used towards controversial ads. We all remember Al Franken's ad in 2008 which showed people getting peed on by the man suggesting the fat cats are pissing on the little guy. I know I don't want to see an ad where people are sh&t on either. Can you imagine a giant bending over and going to the bathroom on people only to make a political point? At which point should the FCC draw the line? So this raises my question. Is campaign finance reform worth seeing people going to the bathroom on others or should politicians be allowed to raise as much money as they can? Here are my suggestions.

Ban soft donations from corporations.
Ban soft donations from unions.
Limit individual contributions to $2,500.
Limit federal candidates to $200,000,000.
Federal candidates may not opt out of campaign finance reform limits.
Electoral reform awarding one EV for each congressional district won and two EV's for each state won.

Should independent ads be allowed? Is it worth seeing people getting pissed or sh&t on? I know some of these policies are already in effect, but limiting how much a candidate can raise or spend could clean up the election process. Or would independent ads only get dirtier?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The solution's pretty simple, really:
- Provide every candidate with the exact same amount of money in public funding. They can't spend any other money (including their own).
- Force major TV networks to provide the same amount of airtime to every candidate, for free. Ban any other political advertising on TV.
- Ban any "independent" activity in campaigning. Any message in support of a candidate/party must be authorized by said candidate/party and is counted in their airtime/money count.

Of course, this will never happen in the US.

[DC Al Fine]

Limit donations to individuals. No corporate or union donations. Then cap donations at a fairly high level like $5000 per person.

[politicallefty]

I support a constitutional amendment that gives Congress and the states, respectively, absolute authority over campaign finance laws, allowing the government to cap all contributions and expenditures (which would allow for the outlaw of all corporate spending in influencing elections). A strong public financing system is the best way to ensure the integrity of the electoral system. Ideally, there would also be strict limits on advertising times, such as nothing earlier than Labor Day before a November general election.

[barfbag]

The solution's pretty simple, really:
- Provide every candidate with the exact same amount of money in public funding. They can't spend any other money (including their own).
- Force major TV networks to provide the same amount of airtime to every candidate, for free. Ban any other political advertising on TV.
- Ban any "independent" activity in campaigning. Any message in support of a candidate/party must be authorized by said candidate/party and is counted in their airtime/money count.

Of course, this will never happen in the US.

That's basically what I'm saying, but we can't force what the media does in our country. Also, ads are very expensive so if they agree to run an ad for a candidate, they can't do it without being paid for it. I'd like to ban "independent" ads, but I think the Supreme Court would overturn it. I like how the candidates have to address the ads themselves at the beginning and end of commercials. You'd like to see candidates not be allowed to opt out of public financing? I agree.

[barfbag]

I agree with Antonio. Public financing that provides every qualifying candidate with enough money to run a healthy campaign is the only way to address the systemic legalized bribery that drives American politics.

Beyond establishing that floor of funding, I'm not convinced that much needs to be done. IIRC most research shows that once a candidate has enough money to get on the air and run a legitimate campaign, additional spending doesn't have nearly as much of an effect, so I don't see a need for tight restrictions on political donations beyond the funding floor that public financing could provide.

So what you're saying is limiting how much an individual can donate wouldn't be necessary if each candidate could only raise and spend $200,000,000?

[barfbag]

I support a constitutional amendment that gives Congress and the states, respectively, absolute authority over campaign finance laws, allowing the government to cap all contributions and expenditures (which would allow for the outlaw of all corporate spending in influencing elections). A strong public financing system is the best way to ensure the integrity of the electoral system. Ideally, there would also be strict limits on advertising times, such as nothing earlier than Labor Day before a November general election.

Very good idea.

[barfbag]

I agree with Antonio. Public financing that provides every qualifying candidate with enough money to run a healthy campaign is the only way to address the systemic legalized bribery that drives American politics.

Beyond establishing that floor of funding, I'm not convinced that much needs to be done. IIRC most research shows that once a candidate has enough money to get on the air and run a legitimate campaign, additional spending doesn't have nearly as much of an effect, so I don't see a need for tight restrictions on political donations beyond the funding floor that public financing could provide.

So what you're saying is limiting how much an individual can donate wouldn't be necessary if each candidate could only raise and spend $200,000,000?

I'm saying that if you gave ever major candidate in a Congressional race something like $500,000, they'd be on relatively even footing even if one candidate was able to augment that with millions in private money and the other could not.

I still agree. I was referring to the presidency. House and Senate races don't cost as much so your number of $500,000 seems plausible.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The solution's pretty simple, really:
- Provide every candidate with the exact same amount of money in public funding. They can't spend any other money (including their own).
- Force major TV networks to provide the same amount of airtime to every candidate, for free. Ban any other political advertising on TV.
- Ban any "independent" activity in campaigning. Any message in support of a candidate/party must be authorized by said candidate/party and is counted in their airtime/money count.

Of course, this will never happen in the US.

That's basically what I'm saying, but we can't force what the media does in our country. Also, ads are very expensive so if they agree to run an ad for a candidate, they can't do it without being paid for it. I'd like to ban "independent" ads, but I think the Supreme Court would overturn it. I like how the candidates have to address the ads themselves at the beginning and end of commercials. You'd like to see candidates not be allowed to opt out of public financing? I agree.

This would require a couple constitutional Amendments, indeed.

As for the cost of airing ads, I highly doubt that a couple dozen hours every four years are going to send TV stations into bankruptcy...

[DC Al Fine]

For the people who want public financing: How do you decide who "qualifies"?

[barfbag]

For the people who want public financing: How do you decide who "qualifies"?

Democrats and Republicans would receive $200,000,000 each and be required to stick to public financing.

[barfbag]

The solution's pretty simple, really:
- Provide every candidate with the exact same amount of money in public funding. They can't spend any other money (including their own).
- Force major TV networks to provide the same amount of airtime to every candidate, for free. Ban any other political advertising on TV.
- Ban any "independent" activity in campaigning. Any message in support of a candidate/party must be authorized by said candidate/party and is counted in their airtime/money count.

Of course, this will never happen in the US.

That's basically what I'm saying, but we can't force what the media does in our country. Also, ads are very expensive so if they agree to run an ad for a candidate, they can't do it without being paid for it. I'd like to ban "independent" ads, but I think the Supreme Court would overturn it. I like how the candidates have to address the ads themselves at the beginning and end of commercials. You'd like to see candidates not be allowed to opt out of public financing? I agree.

This would require a couple constitutional Amendments, indeed.

As for the cost of airing ads, I highly doubt that a couple dozen hours every four years are going to send TV stations into bankruptcy...

I know but if a network doesn't want to broadcast an ad, then they shouldn't have to. Actually, I don't think it's up to the networks even.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I know but if a network doesn't want to broadcast an ad, then they shouldn't have to.

Why not? That's a fairly low price to pay for democracy.

[barfbag]

I know but if a network doesn't want to broadcast an ad, then they shouldn't have to.

Why not? That's a fairly low price to pay for democracy.

We can't force anyone to endorse or advertise anything in our country. It's comparable to forcing someone to cut their neighbor's grass without paying them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I know but if a network doesn't want to broadcast an ad, then they shouldn't have to.

Why not? That's a fairly low price to pay for democracy.

We can't force anyone to endorse or advertise anything in our country. It's comparable to forcing someone to cut their neighbor's grass without paying them.

TV networks are not people. They are means of communication. Their freedom expression can be properly limited if the people, through its elected representatives, thinks it best to do so.

[TNF]

Here's a few ideas:

+ Total ban on paid political advertising. Parties should be allotted equal time for advertisements on television networks.
+ Ban on all political action committees, super or not.
+ Ban on individual donations to political parties, as well as corporate donations to political parties.
+ Require that parties do their own fundraising from their membership. Basically, turn American parties into dues-paying organizations, and end the practice of allowing voters to 'register' as a party member without paying dues.
+ Limit campaigning to after Labor Day.

[barfbag]

I know but if a network doesn't want to broadcast an ad, then they shouldn't have to.

Why not? That's a fairly low price to pay for democracy.

We can't force anyone to endorse or advertise anything in our country. It's comparable to forcing someone to cut their neighbor's grass without paying them.

TV networks are not people. They are means of communication. Their freedom expression can be properly limited if the people, through its elected representatives, thinks it best to do so.

Networks are still owned by people. It's like saying the owner of a grocery store is now legally required to sell a certain brand of toilet paper that has been endorsed and approved by the U.S. government. Or, like saying they are legally required to carry a particular snack item or advertise for a particular burrito. Come to think of it, all of these grocery requirements would call for high quality toilet paper. I couldn't imagine a bathroom smelling worse if we had these requirements.

[barfbag]

Here's a few ideas:

+ Total ban on paid political advertising. Parties should be allotted equal time for advertisements on television networks.
+ Ban on all political action committees, super or not.
+ Ban on individual donations to political parties, as well as corporate donations to political parties.
+ Require that parties do their own fundraising from their membership. Basically, turn American parties into dues-paying organizations, and end the practice of allowing voters to 'register' as a party member without paying dues.
+ Limit campaigning to after Labor Day.

Would you agree with a $200,000,000 cap? This should set advertising time equally unless one candidate decides to spend it on other means of advertisements. Paying to belong to a party would violate the first amendment because we have the freedom of assembly. If an assembly of people do not require payment, then it's their choice. Another violation this payment would be in is that it could legally be interpreted as a poll tax where people have to pay in order to vote. I'm fine with TV and internet ads being limited to after Labor Day, but after the primaries, a candidate has the right to get their name and voice out. People also have the freedom of assembly and can rally for any candidate they choose at any time they want.

[politicallefty]

Would you agree with a $200,000,000 cap? This should set advertising time equally unless one candidate decides to spend it on other means of advertisements. Paying to belong to a party would violate the first amendment because we have the freedom of assembly. If an assembly of people do not require payment, then it's their choice. Another violation this payment would be in is that it could legally be interpreted as a poll tax where people have to pay in order to vote. I'm fine with TV and internet ads being limited to after Labor Day, but after the primaries, a candidate has the right to get their name and voice out. People also have the freedom of assembly and can rally for any candidate they choose at any time they want.

I think it's obvious that those proposals, as most in this topic, are contingent upon a constitutional amendment. I don't think any campaign finance reform beyond disclosure requirements and the like can survive the current Supreme Court. I don't think anyone in this topic has proposed anything that would satisfy the Court. It's probably only a matter of time before all donation limits are wiped out as well. It's quite possible that by 2016 we may be looking at direct unlimited personal and corporate donations to candidates.

[barfbag]

Would you agree with a $200,000,000 cap? This should set advertising time equally unless one candidate decides to spend it on other means of advertisements. Paying to belong to a party would violate the first amendment because we have the freedom of assembly. If an assembly of people do not require payment, then it's their choice. Another violation this payment would be in is that it could legally be interpreted as a poll tax where people have to pay in order to vote. I'm fine with TV and internet ads being limited to after Labor Day, but after the primaries, a candidate has the right to get their name and voice out. People also have the freedom of assembly and can rally for any candidate they choose at any time they want.

I think it's obvious that those proposals, as most in this topic, are contingent upon a constitutional amendment. I don't think any campaign finance reform beyond disclosure requirements and the like can survive the current Supreme Court. I don't think anyone in this topic has proposed anything that would satisfy the Court. It's probably only a matter of time before all donation limits are wiped out as well. It's quite possible that by 2016 we may be looking at direct unlimited personal and corporate donations to candidates.

Very possible, but these are good ideas. Court decisions should be overridden with 2/3 congressional majority.

[barfbag]

I've added a pill to this bill. How would it go over if we rewarded an electoral vote for each congressional district won and two for each state won? State legislators would now have to think about voting patterns and trends not only when it comes to congressional elections, but also presidential elections. Gerrymandering would become twice as hard. Voters don't always vote for the same party for the House as they do the White House.