Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The candidate war chests: Can we FINALLY start talking about public financing???

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 11:53 AM
Original message
The candidate war chests: Can we FINALLY start talking about public financing???
This is just the primary season. Indeed, it is the **earliest** primary season ever.

And yet, we see in excess of $100 Million in play already.

ONE ... HUNDRED ... MILLION ... FUCKING ... US ... GREENBACKS.

One tenth of a BILLION.

Where will it end? A Billion Bux to get elected to a half million buck a year job?

It is way past time to start talking about publically financed campaigns. Not campaign finance reform.

Publically Financed Campaigns

Give a penny to a politician and go to jail.

Take a penny in contributions and go to jail.

Real Fucking Simple.

I am sure someone can come up with ways to make sure the little guys get a fair chance to compete against the juggernauts. I'm also sure that some little guy can come out of nowhere and kick the shit out of the juggernaut every now and again.

This isn't partisan. It is simply small-D democratic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. Heartily agreed - recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Clean Money, Clean Elections bill should be resubmitted in honor of Paul Wellstone.
Edited on Wed Apr-04-07 12:01 PM by blm
Kerry and Wellstone submitted the first public financing of campaigns legislation in the senate in 1997. Only 5 senators supported it then. McCain-Feingold got all the media attention, but was doomed to become a failed policy.

I think a MAJORITY of senators would support Clean Money, Clean Elections legislation today.

http://www.publicampaign.org/modelbill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Will Kerry cosponsor Durbin's bill? Both are for public financing for Senate campaigns only.
I would be very surprised if he did not. To support Durbin's public financing of Senate campaigns: http://www.StopTheMoneyChase.org/Petition

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.+918:

S.918

Clean Money, Clean Elections Act (Introduced in Senate)

TITLE I--CLEAN MONEY FINANCING OF SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.

(a) UNDERMINING OF DEMOCRACY BY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIVATE SOURCES- The Senate finds and declares that the current system of privately financed campaigns for election to the Senate undermines democracy in the United States by--

(1) violating the democratic principle of `one person, one vote' and diminishing the meaning of the right to vote by allowing monied interests to have a disproportionate and unfair influence within the political process;
(2) diminishing a Senator's accountability to constituents by compelling legislators to be accountable to the major contributors who finance their election campaigns;
(3) creating a conflict of interest, perceived and real, by encouraging Senators to take money from private interests that are directly affected by Federal legislation;
(4) imposing large, unwarranted costs on taxpayers through legislative and regulatory outcomes shaped by unequal access to lawmakers for campaign contributors;
(5) driving up the cost of election campaigns, making it difficult for qualified candidates without personal fortunes or access to campaign contributions from monied individuals and interest groups to mount competitive Senate election campaigns;
(6) disadvantaging challengers, because large campaign contributors tend to give their money to incumbent Senators, thus causing Senate elections to be less competitive; and
(7) burdening incumbents with a preoccupation with fundraising and thus decreasing the time available to carry out their public responsibilities.

(b) ENHANCEMENT OF DEMOCRACY BY PROVIDING CLEAN MONEY- The Senate finds and declares that the replacement of private campaign
contributions with clean money financing for all primary, runoff, and general elections to the Senate would enhance American democracy by--

(1) helping to eliminate access to wealth as a determinant of a citizen's influence within the political process and to restore meaning to the principle of `one person, one vote';
(2) increasing the accountability of Senators to the constituents who elect them;
(3) eliminating the inherent conflict of interest caused by the private financing of the election campaigns of public officials, thus restoring public confidence in the fairness of the electoral and legislative processes;
(4) reversing the escalating cost of elections and saving taxpayers billions of dollars that are
currently misspent due to legislative and regulatory agendas skewed by the influence of contributions;

(5) creating a more level playing field for incumbents and challengers, creating genuine opportunities for all Americans to run for the Senate, and encouraging more competitive elections; and
(6) freeing Senators from the constant preoccupation with raising money, and allowing them more time to carry out their public responsibilities.
SEC. 102. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND BENEFITS OF CLEAN MONEY FINANCING OF SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`TITLE V--CLEAN MONEY FINANCING OF SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. How are individual donations...not corporate...but individual...
Not free speech...that is going to be a tough nut to crack...

Theses numbers are from individual donors...

How are the courts going to be convinced that a person giving to the candidate of his choice can be banned under the constitution...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I have no idea, but I will say this ........
..... where there's a will, there's a way.

If the country wants it, the country can get it.

We can either see ways to diminish the idea or we can promote the idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I don't really detect a will...
In the country...public financing never cracks the top of the list as far as voter concerns...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. That's why the idea needs to be promoted.
Nothing happens without 'advertising'.

Look at impeachment. A few months ago no one would even utter the word.

Now, it *at least* gets talked about. And the talk is mostly in favor of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Sign Common Cause petition to support Durbin's bill and the companion House bill
http://www.StopTheMoneyChase.org/Petition


Remember what Molly Ivins said...

"We don’t need a lobby reform package, you dimwits, we need full public financing of campaigns, and every single one of you who spends half your time whoring after special interest contributions knows it. The Abramoff scandal is a once in a lifetime gift—a perfect lesson on what’s wrong with the system being laid out for people to see. Run with it, don’t mess around with little patches, and fix the system."

http://www.progressive.org/mag_ivins0306
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Durbin's bill would provide $500 tax credit and Senators may opt in or out of public financing.
We already have limits on "free speech." Donations to individual candidates are limited to $2,300 for both the primary and the general campaigns.

Durbin's sweetner to us taxpayers is the $500 tax credit and for the Senator--not to not have to spend their time begging for money from the special interests who bankroll their campaigns through lobbyists' serving as their fundraisers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. But...
Edited on Wed Apr-04-07 01:33 PM by SaveElmer
The Supreme Court has clearly said political contributions are a form of free speech...I don't see how it can be banned...

And if there is an opt out provision, I don't see it as being a whole lot different than now

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. You're right. It won't be a whole lot different--if it does pass, and we don't support it.
It will be up to us to make it work. And the $500 tax credit is a nice carrot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. WE can, but it's unlikely our so-called "leaders" will
They are too deep under the covers with the corporations, who would be the big losers, along with their Beltway enablers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. Yeah, the winners are GE, Disney, FOX, Sinclair and all the media moguls
who will laugh all the way to the bank off the advertising $ to be spent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
14. The problem I always run into
When I discuss this type of topic with anyone (and I am strongly for publical financed campaigns)

is the First Amendment.

You can stop the public from giving money directly to a candidate, but can you stop a candidate from spending their own money to express their rights of free speech, whether that is through advertising or creating 1 million leaflets to be distributed?

Can you stop a person from spending money to express their opinion on an issue.. so say rich GOP oil tycoon A wants to spend his money to promote the candidate he feels is best, do we have the right to stop him from exercising his free speech. On the other side, say George Soros wants to spend 1 billion dollars to express his views on the environment and thereby support the candidate with the best environmental record?

The free speech issue has always been a hard one for me to get around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I think a campaign/candidacy has to be defined as legally distinct from
the candidate, so said candidate is restricted from pouring money into the campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chaska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-04-07 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
15. AMEN!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC