Step 1 to bring the US into the First World Nations Campaign Financing

Thread copied here from the Step 1 to bring the US into the First World Nations thread in the Coffee House (temp) forum.

And pray tell, what exactly do you think "abridge" means, if it doesn't include reducing the effectiveness?

---

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

It means to lessen, limit or curtail. They deal with access and quantity, not with quality or presentation.Hiring a spokesperson is not the same as speaking yourself.

---

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

I've already agreed with you that they are not the same, so you can stop saying that.It has nothing to do with quality or presentation. It's about the ability to reach more people. As such, it is in fact an access issue, which you conceded is included in the concept of "abridge." If I wanted to run from President, I couldn't begin to raise the money needed to get my message out myself. However, if I can convince many other people to contribute to my campaign, then I can begin to do so.

---

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

You would almost need to outlaw political ads. However you limit donations to the individual candidates from individual citizens you will still have PAC's and 3rd parties taking in donations to spend on advertisement. So while Joe Billionaire may not be able to donate a large sum directly to a candidate he can still donate a large sum to the PAC supporting that candidate. The only way to curb this would be to use FCC regulations to strongly curtail the number of political ads that are allowable in a given stretch of time. I can only assume that this will go directly to the Supreme Court in short order. That ruling would be one of the most important in recent US history whichever way it goes.Personally, I would like to see a cap of about $1,000 dollars per individual per year for political donations with no money coming from corporations. I don't know how realistic this is, but it sounds right to me.

And to those who cannot pay?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I do not see it as an access issue.If you read what I write there is a source for funding, but it is the SAME for all candidates at the Presidential level. No candidate would have greater access just because they had more money.

---

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

I could be wrong, but I think the SCOTUS has ruled that political donations do qualify as free speech. SCOTUS has also ruled that corporations are individuals which is a bit screwed up. I really think the first step would be to limit TV and radio ads which could be done through the FCC (I think). This may force candidates to appear in the news media where they can at least answer questions from journalists instead of spewing out the same talking points in commercial after commercial. Even if they are softball questions from Hannity to the Republican candidate at least they have to form complete sentences and show that they can interact with the public. We could also pump a little more money into public television (CSPAN and PBS) to help cover the candidates on the campaign trail.

No, you don't have to outlaw them, you simply limit the money available to produce them.I would also favor requiring all media to carry any political adds for free.

---

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

I have hopes that we will see SCOTUS change soon.

---

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

You asking me Jon?

---

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

With primary elections we do have a pseudo-run off system. This is how the Tea Party and Blue Dog Democrats have influenced politics, by winning primary elections over more traditional candidates. I completely agree that a three party system will not work in US politics any time soon. However, there is a way for non-traditional views to come to the forefront through the primary system.

Wonderful for the candidates. (Of course, this isn't true, because those with personal money will always have more, but let's ignore that for the moment.) All you are doing is restricting, limiting, abridging, the ability of the average citizen to have some voice in the process. Curiously, I'm just as concerned about their rights as those of the candidates. It has nothing to do with equalizing the candidates' access, it has everything to do with allowing for the possibility that average citizens will have meaningful access.{AbE}What's more, if you seriously think that the law will give third party candidates the same funding as the Dimwitcrats and the Repugnantcans, I want some of whatever you're drinking. That ain't agonna happen. The result; further entrenching of the two-party system.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

Actually if you read what I proposed it would also limit the totals spent so the guy using his on money still couldn't exceed the totals.No, the average citizen can still influence politics through speech, but the citizen that just happens to have more money doesn't get to buy preferred status.

---

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

But if you are going to go down that route, where is the principled argument against a law that says: "You can discuss the following things ... so long as you do so in the privacy of your own home"? Or: "... so long as you don't raise your voice above a whisper"?