Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Step 1 to bring the US into the First World Nations Campaign Financing
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 58 (610648)
03-31-2011 2:54 PM


I strongly believe that the first step that we need to revive the US and bring it into the company of First World Nations is to ban all campaign contributions, limit campaign spending and fund campaigns through direct taxation.
Any candidate caught using any other funding or accepting any other funding should be immediately disqualified.
Any corporation caught contributing money or kind should be immediately sanctioned through a ban on receiving any Federal funding or business for the duration of that elections term of office.
Edited by jar, : No reason given.
Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Theodoric, posted 03-31-2011 3:04 PM jar has not replied
 Message 3 by fearandloathing, posted 03-31-2011 3:11 PM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 03-31-2011 4:39 PM jar has replied
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-31-2011 5:12 PM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 45 by Blue Jay, posted 04-01-2011 12:36 AM jar has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 2 of 58 (610649)
03-31-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
03-31-2011 2:54 PM


I agree that these are noble and worthwhile objectives, but I do not see it ever happening. Therefore, I do not see the US ever becoming a first world nation again.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 03-31-2011 2:54 PM jar has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 3 of 58 (610650)
03-31-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
03-31-2011 2:54 PM


jar writes:
I strongly believe that the first step that we need to revive the US and bring it into the company of First World Nations is to ban all campaign contributions, limit campaign spending and fund campaigns through direct taxation.
Any candidate caught using any other funding or accepting any other funding should be immediately disqualified.
Any corporation caught contributing money or kind should be immediately sanctioned through a ban on receiving any Federal funding or business for the duration of that elections term of office.
i agree it would be a good fist step.
I would like more choices, a true multi party system. I know that is not going to happen though, I could even imagine how it could be done, neither side wants to share power.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 03-31-2011 2:54 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Rahvin, posted 03-31-2011 4:00 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 4 of 58 (610651)
03-31-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by fearandloathing
03-31-2011 3:11 PM


i agree it would be a good fist step.
I would like more choices, a true multi party system. I know that is not going to happen though, I could even imagine how it could be done, neither side wants to share power.
Well, we don't precisely need their permission. That's not the major issue.
The problem with ditching the 2-party system is that the two main parties represent a catch-22.
Imagine a new party, the You Guys are Idiots party, forms and represents me perfectly. I want to vote for them...but what happens?
The YGaI party had better get a massive share of the voting pool. Otherwise, my vote for the third party simply represents one more vote that the party I hate the most doesn't need to overcome in order to win. It serves to make it more likely that the party I hate the most will wind up representing me.
Let's say the YGaI party is pretty liberal. Most of the people who want to vote for them have historically voted Democrat. In my district, let's say that the Democrat/Republican split is 46% Democrat, 42% Republican, and the remaining 12% goes to other minor parties.
the YGaI party manages to scrape together 5% of the vote, all of them taken from the Democrats.
It's pretty clear that the folks voting for the YGaI party would much rather have a Democrat than a Republican rep, even if the Democrats don't represent them as well. But by splitting the Democrat vote, the distribution is now 41% Democrat and 42% Republican...the Republican wins.
In an all-or-nothing system like ours, the 49.99% of people who vote for the losing party wind up not getting represented at all. This strongly favors a 2-party system, because unless you can get a near-parity among additional parties, a vote for a minor party is really a vote against the major party you hate the least, and it just serves to make it easier for the party you hate the most to win the spot.
Some other political systems work around this by assigning multiple representatives based on the percentage of the vote. So, imagine District X has 10 representatives. Party A gets 51% of the vote )in the US, Party A would simply win, and everybody else is SOL), Party B gets 29%, and Party C and D each get about 10%. Of the 10 reps, District X will be represented by one each from C and D, 5 reps from A, and 3 from B. Even the minority parties get represented in proportion to their votes.
Fixing ours would take a Constitutional Amendment and a cultural change the likes of which usually require revolution, and I just don;t see that happening.
If only it was easier to emigrate to Canada...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by fearandloathing, posted 03-31-2011 3:11 PM fearandloathing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 03-31-2011 6:42 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 58 (610652)
03-31-2011 4:14 PM


Voting methods are a different subject.
One step at a time. Hopefully we can address voting ideas in another thread.
First, lets fix this one issue, campaign financing.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by fearandloathing, posted 03-31-2011 4:24 PM jar has replied
 Message 20 by Taq, posted 03-31-2011 6:29 PM jar has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 6 of 58 (610653)
03-31-2011 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
03-31-2011 4:14 PM


Re: Voting methods are a different subject.
I cant say how many states have campaign contribution limits now, but I know at least 7 did not around a year ago. It was a topic here in NC for a time as we looked at doing it.
Do you think it would help to try something like this on a federal level? A set of tight restrictions.
Maybe a system where contributions are made to the party, and then somehow divided up amongst the candidates running for different offices within the party? Just a quick thought.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 03-31-2011 4:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 03-31-2011 4:30 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 58 (610654)
03-31-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by fearandloathing
03-31-2011 4:24 PM


Re: Voting methods are a different subject.
I think we need to halt ALL campaign contributions and fund campaigns through taxes at the Federal level with money going to each candidate prorated on the population of his or her constituency. That of course would only apply to Federal positions, Congress and the Presidency. States and local governments could set whatever rules they wanted at those levels.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by fearandloathing, posted 03-31-2011 4:24 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by fearandloathing, posted 03-31-2011 4:41 PM jar has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 8 of 58 (610655)
03-31-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
03-31-2011 2:54 PM


First Amendment
I can't agree with you on this one. I believe the ability to contribute to a campaign is a vital freedom protected by the First Amendment. There is no more effective way for one to speak and get one's voice heard than campaign contributions. Before we can infringe that right, there needs to be a compelling governmental interest and that purpose must be served by the least intrusive manner. If you can describe for me the compelling governmental interest and show that banning contributions is the least intrusive way to achieve that interest, I'll listen.
I do tend to agree on limits on corporate spending. Corporations don't and shouldn't have the same rights as people.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 03-31-2011 2:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 03-31-2011 4:54 PM subbie has replied
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 03-31-2011 6:34 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 9 of 58 (610656)
03-31-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
03-31-2011 4:30 PM


Re: Voting methods are a different subject.
How do you think this can be accomplished? is there anyone in Dc in favor of this, or anything like it?

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 03-31-2011 4:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 03-31-2011 5:00 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 58 (610657)
03-31-2011 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by subbie
03-31-2011 4:39 PM


Re: First Amendment
Money is NOT speech and so the First Amendment is irrelevant to this issue.
In addition, "governmental interests" are also totally irrelevant.
What is relevant though is individual rights to speech and preventing the control and limitation of speech through money. It is in the public interest that government not just be the highest bidder.
It may well be easier to just contribute money rather than actually get out and campaign, but the two are not synonymous. Hiring a spokesperson is NOT the same as speaking yourself.
If we are going to change the way those elected behave, we need to reform the system so that it is not just another purchase.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 03-31-2011 4:39 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 03-31-2011 5:39 PM jar has replied
 Message 23 by Taq, posted 03-31-2011 6:37 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 11 of 58 (610658)
03-31-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by fearandloathing
03-31-2011 4:41 PM


Re: Voting methods are a different subject.
Unfortunately the only way I see this happening is by bodies in the street, the same way we stopped the war in Vietnam, change the racial laws, forced Presidents out of office. It will be difficult, likely even dangerous and must be a grass roots movement from the bottom that is forced on those a the top.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by fearandloathing, posted 03-31-2011 4:41 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by fearandloathing, posted 03-31-2011 5:21 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 58 (610659)
03-31-2011 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
03-31-2011 2:54 PM


I agree with subbie. And Rahvin.
My own idea for campaign finance reform is that a candidate should be obliged to list his or her sources of income in every advertisement. If some guy is running for Senator in Vermont, and he can put at the bottom of every advert: "Paid for by the people of the great state of Vermont", then he can do that. If he's also getting money from his party's national committee, then he should have to mention that. And if he's being propped up by a hundred corporations, then he should have to list them.
The voters can then decide which they'd prefer.
Unlike your suggestion, this is not conceivably a breach of First Amendment rights any more than the requirement that food manufacturers should list their ingredients.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 03-31-2011 2:54 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by dronestar, posted 04-01-2011 10:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 13 of 58 (610660)
03-31-2011 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
03-31-2011 5:00 PM


We are doomed
I cannot imagine enough people being able to agree long enough to start a grass roots movement. I'll be 39 soon and , sadly, the only time I can remember most Americans agreeing on something was post 911, then not for long as the folly of the war was realized.
I did e-mail my congressman, Howard Coble- R, NC, I will let you know how he responds. He said he wouldn't take any govt pension when he retires, but I doubt he would back your idea?
I also invited him to respond here personally, like that will ever happen...LOL

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 03-31-2011 5:00 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 14 of 58 (610661)
03-31-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
03-31-2011 4:54 PM


Re: First Amendment
Hiring a spokesperson is NOT the same as speaking yourself.
No, in most cases it's more effective. That's why it's often the best way for someone to express their opinion. You can of course simply dismiss my position by just claiming that the two are not the same. But for your dismissal to have any force, you need to explain why.
I can stand on a soapbox on a street corner and proclaim my opinion for all to hear. There might be a few hundred to a few thousand people who hear my voice, few if any will take any heed regardless of what I say. I will be able to communicate with a tiny fraction of the number of people I can reach with an ad on prime time television. Of course, only a very tiny minority of people can afford to buy an ad on prime time television. However, if they all contribute to someone else who can then afford to buy an ad on television, then they can reach millions.
You are right, money is not speech. But money makes speech more effective. If you think the difference between being able to effectively speak and not is irrelevant for purposes of the First Amendment, you need to explain why.
{AbE} Oh, and one more thing. It absolutely would be a First Amendment violation to bar candidates from spending their own money in a campaign. By effectively preventing anyone else from contributing to a campaign, you are further increasing the inherent advantage that the rich have in politics.
Edited by subbie, : As noted

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 03-31-2011 4:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 03-31-2011 5:43 PM subbie has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 15 of 58 (610662)
03-31-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by subbie
03-31-2011 5:39 PM


Re: First Amendment
subbie writes:
Hiring a spokesperson is NOT the same as speaking yourself.
No, in most cases it's more effective. That's why it's often the best way for someone to express their opinion. You can of course simply dismiss my position by just claiming that the two are not the same. But for your dismissal to have any force, you need to explain why.
I can stand on a soapbox on a street corner and proclaim my opinion for all to hear. There might be a few hundred to a few thousand people who hear my voice, few if any will take any heed regardless of what I say. I will be able to communicate with a tiny fraction of the number of people I can reach with an ad on prime time television. Of course, only a very tiny minority of people can afford to buy an ad on prime time television. However, if they all contribute to someone else who can then afford to buy an ad on television, then they can reach millions.
You are right, money is not speech. But money makes speech more effective. If you think the difference between being able to effectively speak and not is irrelevant for purposes of the First Amendment, you need to explain why.
Because the First Amendment has nothing to say about the effectiveness of speech, only that it sould not be abridged.
Advertising and marketing are decidedly different than discussion and speech. By all accounts, Lincoln had a squeaky voice and was no where near the orator of many of his opponents, but the content that he provided outweighed the medium.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 03-31-2011 5:39 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by subbie, posted 03-31-2011 6:02 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024