For our republic to survive it is essential that we change the way campaigns are financed and take our government back to its roots.
On The Daily Show on Thursday former President Bill Clinton made some very good points about the pressures on legislators and how the need to finance increasingly expensive campaigns is reducing the quality of representation which they provide and contributing to the increasingly contentious atmosphere in Washington. This is especially true for members of the House of Representatives who have to face an election every two years and are fighting so hard to stay in office that they don't actually get as much done or pay as much attention to what they are doing as they should.…
Article comments
26 - Dave Nalle
Al, I'm with you on reducing the size of government. The problem is that the current election/campaign system doesn't put people in office who are willing to do it. Big spending campaigns produce big spending legislators. Starting somewhere small like reforming congressional campaigns might get us some results. Just wishing government smaller hasn't worked so well so far.
As for Clinton's plan, I specifically repudiated it. Hillary went into more detail on it today on Meet the Press. She wants to have all campaigns publicly funded, which means government deciding who can run, creating a permanent political aristocracy. That's precisely what I don't want, which is why I'm suggesting alternative ways to achieve the stated goal.
As for the first amendment issues, I think you're off-base. There's a huge difference between selectively censoring the press and just shutting down all coverage of the election. But I agree it's not the ideal solution. I'd be happy with just starting by limiting campaigning and fundraising to a 3 month period before the election. That would be a good start.
Dave
27 - adam
>Instead, why don't we consider really turning back
>the clock? Let's just take away the changes which
>separate politics as they are today with how they
>were a hundred years ago and recreate an
>environment in which campaigns are limited and
>focused on the candidate's words and ideas rather
>than his war chest.
How about removing the weak link in the current system: the representatives themselves? Introduce and extend more ways for direct democracy and reduce or eliminate the powers of our (bribed, corrupted) representatives.
There would still be the problem of big money buying big propaganda to sway the masses, but at least it won't be direct corruption. The debate, the fight, will be explicitly public, not secreted away in some back room or flown off in a private jet to some exotic location.
28 - Moonraven
When talking about campaign financing, you need to follow the money to find out who is running your country.
Here in Mexico the congress just approved an electoral reform (next to be ratified by the states) that left the biggest beneficiaries of the campaign funds (from the public coffers) squealing and kicking like the pigs they are. Those big piggies are the owners of the television stations.
They were counting on at least 6 billion pesos (550 million dollars) per sexenio (six-year electoral term) from the public trough from the sale of campaign "spots".
The congress passed the reform shortening the term of campaigns (Mexico has had the longest, most expensive politica campaigns on the planet) and among other things, PROHIBITED the purchase of spots during the campaigns.
It will be interesting to watch all the candidates trying to curry favor with the t.v. stations, however--as the enormous power of the media COVERAGE in elections will not go away with the prohibition of all those spots.
So much for electoral reform.
29 - Baritone
I'm always bemused by those who say they favor the elimination of government. I suppose we should just count on the big corporate honchos to keep a lid on everything. Certainly, our mega-corporations would never abuse their power. All big business is nothing if not honest to a fault, and their only concern is the happiness and welfare of the fair citizens of this blessed country. The few that might tend toward the nefarious would fear repercussions in the market place should any diddling around with our money or our trust be discovered.
The only other thing we need is god. Occasional prayers and admonitions by the likes of James Dobson or the great Pat Robertson. That'd keep us all walking the straight and narrow. Naw, we don't need no stinkin' government.
B-tone
30 - troll
we don't need government any more than god to regulate our interaction and control our behavior
what we need is for government to get out of the way so that the power relations between the classes can 'work themselves out'
31 - Cindy D
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
I guess his suspicions were correct.
32 - Clavos
"I'm always bemused by those who say they favor the elimination of government. I suppose we should just count on the big corporate honchos to keep a lid on everything. Certainly, our mega-corporations would never abuse their power."
While I share your concerns about corporate abuse, Baritone, I fear governmental abuse far more.
The worst situation, however, is the partnering of industry with the government to protect and feed each other. The pharma industry and the FDA, for example. Or practically any utility with almost any state utility regulatory agency.
Too often, government has shown itself to have feet of clay when its own interests collide with those of the citizenry, and the regulation of industry is a frequent arena for this kind of a scenario.
33 - Dave Nalle
It certainly doesn't help when so often the industry and its regulators draw their personnel from the same group of 'experts' or when former employees of regulatory agencies find private employment in the same industry.
Dave
34 - Maurice
Here is Walter Williams take on this subject:
"Campaign finance and lobby reform will only change the method of influence-peddling. If Congress did only what's specifically enumerated in our Constitution, influence-peddling would be a non-issue simply because the Constitution contains no authority for Congress to grant favors and special privileges. Nearly two decades ago, during dinner with the late Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, I asked him if he had the power to write one law that would get government out of our lives, what would that law be? Professor Hayek replied he'd write a law that read: Whatever Congress does for one American it must do for all Americans. He elaborated: If Congress makes payments to one American for not raising pigs, every American not raising pigs should also receive payments. Obviously, were there to be such a law, there would be reduced capacity for privilege-granting by Congress and less influence-peddling."
* "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." James Madison, "Letter to Edmund Pendleton,"
-- James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).
* "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
35 - Clavos
"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
Repeated for emphasis.
36 - bliffle
So you guys are in favor of cutting off all the charity issued to corporations every year? Like the $170billion of targeted tax breaks? Like going to war on behalf of oil monopolies?
etc.
37 - JustOneMan
Then Poster "Boy" for campaign reform is the biggest liar in the bunch...
Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.
The right wing La Times reported...
Even as he shuns donations from lobbyists, Obama has taken more than $1.4 million this year from law and consultancy firms that have partners who are registered to lobby, a Times analysis of Obama's fundraising shows. He has received hundreds of thousands more from corporate executives while turning down money from their lobbyists.
Oh yea he is for change! As much change as he can stuff in his pocket and mattress...
JOM
38 - Maurice
bliffle
if you would just read the posts you wouldn't have to ask such questions. Please reread #34 again - slowly this time....
39 - Dave Nalle
So you guys are in favor of cutting off all the charity issued to corporations every year? Like the $170billion of targeted tax breaks? Like going to war on behalf of oil monopolies?
Wow, dumb question, bliffle. Of course we are.
Personally, I'm with noted democrat Robert Reich (Clinton's secretary of labor) and think that there should be NO corporate taxes. There certainly shouldn't be selective ones.
And BTW, there are hundreds of oil companies. It's one of the least monopolized businesses in the world.
dave
40 - handyguy
Wow, an article by Dave which makes me want to say right on rather than making my blood boil. Some of the follow-up comments from him and from others are pretty questionable, but that's par for the course.
It seems obvious to me that money has distorted and corrupted our political system in dangerous ways. Thousands of lying TV ads do not make us a better country. The First Amendment is a red herring here. We should be able to find a way to let politicians really be heard, taking stands on issues, rather than letting slander and disgust define campaigns.
Do Al Barger and Baronius and others who defend the current system really like it? I don't believe it for a minute. They're just having a knee-jerk reaction to 'socialism.'
Of course, the Clintons do tend to look at government programs as a way to get things accomplished, thus public financing - and the libertarians [and Clinton-haters] will never agree with them no matter what. But maybe there are other ways, such as Dave's suggestion, to approach the problem.
Just don't even try to deny that it is a problem!
41 - Dave Nalle
Wow, an article by Dave which makes me want to say right on rather than making my blood boil. Some of the follow-up comments from him and from others are pretty questionable, but that's par for the course.
Now you just need to realize that I'm just as right on everything else.
The First Amendment is a red herring here.
Read that a few times and see if that's REALLY what you wanted to say.
Do Al Barger and Baronius and others who defend the current system really like it? I don't believe it for a minute. They're just having a knee-jerk reaction to 'socialism.'
No, they're taking a poisition principle. All they're saying is that speech should be absolutely free. People should be able to express themselves with their words or their money with no restrictions. It's a reasonable perspective.
On principle they're absolutely correct, but the practice in reality isn't working out so well.
My compromise is that if we're going to restrict free speech it's not as bad as it could be if it's done evenly and accross the board.
Dave
42 - bliffle
"People should be able to express themselves with their words or their money with no restrictions. It's a reasonable perspective."
Sez who? Is that part about the money in the constitution?
If what you say were true, then noone could be prosecuted for bribing anyone.
43 - Maurice
bliffle - please read this.
Dave - what you propose is interesting. It would certainly help the situation. I just think that as long as laws are passed that help one group at the hindrance of another group we will always have a push for corruption in politics.
If the federal government were truly restrained by the Constitution we would not have such problems.
"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its
jurisdiction."
-- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention [June 6, 1788]
44 - handyguy
The fact that it's nearly always rightists who cite the first amendment with regard to this issue - but not necessarily with regard to other issues - makes me call it a 'red herring.'
When a constitutional issue divides too neatly into Left and Right positions, I am suspicious of the positions. I am certainly not suspicious of the Constitution, just of the conveniently selective way some people apply it. Myself included, of course.
45 - gonzo marx
heh..interesting indeed that those who profess a love of the Constitution, the First Amendment in particular...yet embrace "tort reform" and the rest forget something...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
read that last line again...ALL tort restrictions, ANY attempt at restricting folks from lawsuits, violates that last line of the First Amendment
just a Thought
Excelsior?
46 - Dr Dreadful
Also, gonzo, perhaps you've noticed how many of the same people who are prepared to defend the Second Amendment to the death are extremely bothered by the Fourteenth...
47 - bliffle
Maurice,
I looked at that childishly colorful citation, whereupon I could finally discover the text of the 1st amendment, which, as usual, and in spite of all the lurid web decoration, says what it always said before:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
but I couldn't find anything that says spending money to bribe people is legal.
What's your point?
48 - bliffle
DD says: "...many of the same people who are prepared to defend the Second Amendment to the death are extremely bothered by the Fourteenth..."
Except, of course, in one very specific case: Bush vs. Gore, where their lawyers (led by james Baker) claimed that Bush would be deprived of "Equal Protection" if the Florida supreme court decision to recount votes were to be allowed to stand! The SCOTUS majority, 7 of 9 appointed by republican presidents, then proclaimed that this decision could NOT be used as a precedent! Astounding!
I'd bet that even James Baker was surprised at this decision.
It seems to me that this is against the very essence of constitutional law, which is supposed to be about the processes of law, not specific instance.
49 - Dave Nalle
"...many of the same people who are prepared to defend the Second Amendment to the death are extremely bothered by the Fourteenth..."
I missed this before, but it's a classic example of the idiotic bigotry of the left. In fact, those who support the 2nd Amendment are the same people who fought for liberty and passed the 14th Amendment in the first place, and they're the same people who have continued to fight for civil and individual rights in the generations since then.
You're making the mistake of confusing civil liberties with group entitlements, which are markedly NOT the same thing.
dave
50 - Dave Nalle
The fact that it's nearly always rightists who cite the first amendment with regard to this issue - but not necessarily with regard to other issues - makes me call it a 'red herring.'
Handy, in articles on BC in the last couple of years I've cited the first amendment on issues like internet censorship, prayer in schools, flag burning and a variety of other topics. It applies to all of them no more or less than free expression of political support. Where's the inconsistency?
Dave
51 - STM
Some very good points Dave. Caps on campaign funding work well. I believe there should be a taxpayer funded amount (capped, and equal, of course and I know you'll disagree with that but it does lay down some legislated ground rules) and then a capped amount for each party provided by their backers.
Add an electronic media ban of between three days and a week - no ads, no politicians making statements - in the week leading up to the poll to give people a) some cooling off time and b) space to make their own decisions, and voila! It's amazing how different the same story can appear in the newspapers and the electronic media.
Add compulsory voting and you've handed ALL the power back to the people. I understand you have libertarian concerns regarding compulsory voting, but the experience Down Under has been that it engages all groups in the electoral process and forces politicians to address all groups and needs. Politicians who step out of line do not have the protection of their lobby groups. I believe Australians on the whole are far more politically savvy and engaged than Americans, and it's the reason. I see it as no different to the state forcing people to get drivers' licences, or paying taxes. It's just not that big an impost.
We also had a three-day electronic media ban in operation here for many, many years in relation to statements by politicians (not the reporting of the election) and it was a godsend for voters, who could have a bit of time before the poll to really think about what and who's on offer. Good luck trying to get that kind of legislation in the US, but it is good for the punter, if not for the news organisations.
52 - STM
Clav: "And JOM's right. What the majority of people want is health care for everybody, NOT health care provided by the government."
But no doubt they would like the government to make sure that it is fair and equitable, and only the government has the power to do so.
53 - gonzo marx
just a Thought on the topic...
the broadcast public airwaves belong to the Public, and are leased to commercial entities...
each Candidate on the ballot in the broadcast range get equal time on all public airwaves as represented by a dollar figure which the Campaigns can spend as they see fit in "buys" from the broadcasters...
this removes the single largest cost of a campaign, at the cost of the broadcasters fulfilling their "public service" portions of their leases of the public airwaves
just wanted to toss an Idea into the mix, i tend to agree that financing campaigns is one of the root problems in our Republic at this time
Excelsior?
54 - Clavos
bliffle said this back in #20:
"Put all contributions in a Blind Fund so that the candidate gets the benefit without owing allegiance to the contributor."
I said before, it's a good idea....
55 - Dave Nalle
each Candidate on the ballot in the broadcast range get equal time on all public airwaves as represented by a dollar figure which the Campaigns can spend as they see fit in "buys" from the broadcasters...
This is very attractive, gonzo, but I see problems. If you give every candidate on the ballot the same amount of money, doesn't that reward those who can qualify but have very little support and punish those who have a great deal of support and could buy a lot more advertising on their own?
You take the money/advertising time away from the major parties and give it to the natural law party and give them equal time? Or the White Aryan Party for that matter.
Then there's the question of where the money comes from. If as someone suggested earlier, you pool all contributions, then no one has a motivation to contribute, because their contribution no longer goes to support the person or party they want. If you use taxpayer money then you're taking peoples money to subsidize beliefs they don't agree with.
Another problem. Who controls how people get on the ballot? You're transferring a LOT of power to that group. They'll probably start to set the qualifications incredibly high to keep minor candidates off the ballot altogether.
I'd like to see third parties have a chance even more than you would, but it's just not fair to do it at the expense of taxpayers by having them essentially subsidize also-rans.
There's got to be a better way - and I still think just capping spending does the job. It levels the field without costing taxpayers more money or making people pay for campaigns they don't support.
Dave
56 - Dr Dreadful
Dave, #49:
I am neither expressing bigotry nor taking a political position. I simply made the observation that there are those who seem to forget how sacred their Constitution is as soon as they come across a part of it they don't like. The same could be said of gun-control advocates who run up against the Second and find themselves wishing it wasn't there.
Big Dog is an example of what I am talking about. He is strongly pro-gun and cites constitutional authority (the Second Amendment) for his position. He is also strongly anti-illegal immigration and identifies the Fourteenth Amendment right of automatic citizenship as a major contributor to the problem.
I really don't see what difference it makes whether a right is enjoyed by individuals or by groups if it's constitutionally protected. Once again, you're cultivating hairs specifically to split them.
57 - Dave Nalle
Big Dog is an example of what I am talking about. He is strongly pro-gun and cites constitutional authority (the Second Amendment) for his position. He is also strongly anti-illegal immigration and identifies the Fourteenth Amendment right of automatic citizenship as a major contributor to the problem.
Yes, but you shouldn't assume - as you seem to - that the two positions he holds go hand in hand or are held that same way by any signficant number of other people.
I really don't see what difference it makes whether a right is enjoyed by individuals or by groups if it's constitutionally protected.
Ah, but the constitution says not one word about group rights.
Once again, you're cultivating hairs specifically to split them.
Have you seen my photo? I'm clearly not cultivating hairs.
Dave
58 - Dr Dreadful
you shouldn't assume - as you seem to - that the two positions he holds go hand in hand or are held that same way by any signficant number of other people.
And you shouldn't assume that because you argue for gun ownership and for [some of] the rights of illegal immigrants, yours is the default position. Ideological inconsistency is very common. Don't believe me, pick a random congressperson and pay attention the next two times he/she opens his/her mouth...
the constitution says not one word about group rights.
Then why did you bring it up?
Have you seen my photo? I'm clearly not cultivating hairs.
The moment I hit the Publish button it occurred to me that I was handing Moonraven or REMF a freebie. We shall see...!
59 - STM
Good to see you two having a nice knees up :)
60 - STM
Tie the amount of the funding to the size of the party, its membership, and the number of seats it contests. That way, both the Dems and Republicans get roughly equal amounts, whilst the smaller parties get an amount commensurate with their support, ie from zilch to not very much.
Most 'em, like the ones you've noted Dave, are disruptive to the democratic process anyway, despite the fact they are allowed by right to run. So deal with 'em accordingly.
61 - Clavos
Stan, I disagree with your #60.
I think institutionalizing the two party system any more than it already is, is a mistake.
Sure, the smaller parties are marginal and sometimes disruptive, but the more rational of them offer alternative ideas, some of which have real merit and often end up as part of the majors' platforms.
Case in point: in the current race, both Kucinich and Paul are offering some ideas which can and likely will be adopted in the platforms of the nominees of both major parties; ideas that might not have been exposed to the voters, but for their seemingly Quixotic campaigns.
Your idea, I think, would further marginalize them to the detriment of the process, and ultimately, of the country.
62 - Silver Surfer
Clav, you old bastard ... I knew you'd come out of the woodwork at some point.
You're probably right, and how's the titfer :)
63 - Clavos
Waitaminnit, SS!!
You're gonna just roll over like that, with no counterpoint???
That's no fun!!
Me titfer got used recently; I wore it to a party on a client's boat (which I had just sold him). Turned out, there was another Nam vet aboard, who came over and introduced himself as soon as he saw me. He thought the story of how I acquired the hat was very cool.
64 - Dr Dreadful
Clav, he's tired and going to bed to eat chocolate, or something.
All that jetsetting must be catching up with him!
65 - moonraven
I don't need any fuckin' freebies, gringo.
66 - handyguy
An example of gratuitous narstiness we could all do without:
DN: "...a classic example of the idiotic bigotry of the left.
67 - handyguy
Me:
"The fact that it's nearly always rightists who cite the first amendment with regard to this issue - but not necessarily with regard to other issues - makes me call it a 'red herring.'"
DN:
"Handy, in articles on BC in the last couple of years I've cited the first amendment on issues like internet censorship, prayer in schools, flag burning and a variety of other topics. It applies to all of them no more or less than free expression of political support. Where's the inconsistency?"
I wasn't accusing you, individually, of inconsistency [in this case, I mean]. Your article actually takes a contrary position from some conservatives re: campaign finance reform.
My point was that constitutional issues don't, or shouldn't, divide into neatly stacked Left and Right positions, because the Constitution is not a Leftist or Rightist document. When anyone uses the Bill of Rights as a basis for heavy-breathing politics, of any kind, be suspicious.
68 - Dave Nalle
What is the bill of rights for, if not some heavy breathing, waving of signs and shouting of slogans?
dave
69 - Maurice
bliffle #47
you have asked more naive questions in this thread than usual and to me that indicated you are unfamiliar with the constitution. Just thought you might like to read it.
Makes me thing you might be one of those that discovered the Electoral Colleage in 2000.....
70 - bliffle
Do you have some point about the issues under discussion, or have you gone over entirely to ad hominem attacks?
71 - Maurice
bliffle - JFC!
you aren't getting it! If I was making an ad hominem attack on you it would be to refute some point you are making - you are not making a point! You have repeatedly asked me about my points (#36 #42). I was just making an observation about your ability to read.
BTW - An ad hominem attach would be if I said your argument in #20 were invalid because you once misrepresented yourself to me as an Electrical Engineer.