DiscussMormonism.com

I'm not normally one to jump on any particular political bandwagon, since there's almost always enough of a downside that real zeal is unwarranted. But the link below is something I've supported for several years now, and have yet to encounter any real downside. I recommend it to the politically conscious among us, so if it comes to a vote in your state (or at the federal level, for that matter) you'll know what to do.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1029/p09s01-coop.html

I understand the side that is against campaign finance/public funding of campaigns believes it is unconstitutional to limit individuals and pacts from donating money to a candidate of their choosing.

Money = political speech

I believe it was Buckley v. Valeo that ruled that campaign finance legislation was constitutional and did not violate the First Amendment. Then there was a more current case that upheld the newest campaign reform act. I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue but think all in all anything that levels the playing field would be helpful.

I see the problem being that fringe candidates wishing to use public financing. I'm not really that well read when it comes to that and wonder how much it really levels the playing field and opens up public funding to all candidates?

barrelomonkeys wrote:I see the problem being that fringe candidates wishing to use public financing. I'm not really that well read when it comes to that and wonder how much it really levels the playing field and opens up public funding to all candidates?

You have to get a certain number of small-quantity (like $5) contributions in order to get the public funding. And when I say a "certain number" I mean a pretty substantial number. Not the kind of thing that a half-hearted American Independent is gonna be able to pull off.

CaliforniaKid wrote:

barrelomonkeys wrote:I see the problem being that fringe candidates wishing to use public financing. I'm not really that well read when it comes to that and wonder how much it really levels the playing field and opens up public funding to all candidates?

You have to get a certain number of small-quantity (like $5) contributions in order to get the public funding. And when I say a "certain number" I mean a pretty substantial number. Not the kind of thing that a half-hearted American Independent is gonna be able to pull off.

Well I thought that there was matching funds of some sort? Oh shoot. I just haven't paid much attention since the last presidential election when it comes to finance reform legislation.

My understanding is that it would still be the political and wealthy elite that would benefit. I think the $5 contributions is called the 'clean money' proposal. Yet, really I just don't understand how that would benefit anyone other than those already fully capable of raising such money.

Perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture. I also see outside groups such as we saw last time as the Swift Boat Vets just totally bypassing the system. And of course how could it ever be ruled unconstitutional for a group to contribute money to buy ad spots that put across their own political agenda?

Oh, I need to read up on this I suppose.

barrelomonkeys wrote:

CaliforniaKid wrote:

barrelomonkeys wrote:I see the problem being that fringe candidates wishing to use public financing. I'm not really that well read when it comes to that and wonder how much it really levels the playing field and opens up public funding to all candidates?

You have to get a certain number of small-quantity (like $5) contributions in order to get the public funding. And when I say a "certain number" I mean a pretty substantial number. Not the kind of thing that a half-hearted American Independent is gonna be able to pull off.

Well I thought that there was matching funds of some sort? Oh shoot. I just haven't paid much attention since the last presidential election when it comes to finance reform legislation.

My understanding is that it would still be the political and wealthy elite that would benefit. I think the $5 contributions is called the 'clean money' proposal. Yet, really I just don't understand how that would benefit anyone other than those already fully capable of raising such money.

Perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture. I also see outside groups such as we saw last time as the Swift Boat Vets just totally bypassing the system. And of course how could it ever be ruled unconstitutional for a group to contribute money to buy ad spots that put across their own political agenda?

Oh, I need to read up on this I suppose.

Yes, this is the proposal known as "clean money, clean elections". While I understand the Constitutionality/free speech objection, I think the whole point is to make sure that everyone's speech is equal. The way the system is presently run, the voices of the monied many drown out the voices of the underprivileged few. It is no different than the "Equal Time, Equal Opportunity" provision which currently governs media broadcasting during election season. Arguably, that provision violates the free speech rights of Rupert Murdoch. But in reality, removing provisions like this one would give media barons of Murdoch's ilk disproportianate control over the political process (by giving them disproportionate control over the flow of information).

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htm ... timeru.htm

-Chris

CaliforniaKid wrote:
Yes, this is the proposal known as "clean money, clean elections". While I understand the Constitutionality/free speech objection, I think the whole point is to make sure that everyone's speech is equal. The way the system is presently run, the voices of the monied many drown out the voices of the underprivileged few. It is no different than the "Equal Time, Equal Opportunity" provision which currently governs media broadcasting during election season. Arguably, that provision violates the free speech rights of Rupert Murdoch. But in reality, removing provisions like this one would give media barons of Murdoch's ilk disproportianate control over the political process (by giving them disproportionate control over the flow of information).

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htm ... timeru.htm

-Chris

I'm familiar with the equal time rule. I'm just not as familiar with the pros and cons of the debate as I should be to make a fully informed opinion as it relates to campaign funding. I recall back when I was a poli-sci undergrad getting into a heated debate with a fella that was a radical conservative and him screaming at me about money=speech (haha!) and then went and researched it a bit more. Back then I think I did hold a view. Or I may have just been playing devil's advocate because I disliked him intensely. :)

I'll read up on it. Thanks for bringing it up.

Now tie it to LDS and Mitt Romney so it can stay in this forum. ;)

I do consider it to be unconstitutional. I should be able to spend my money any way I want (and how much I want) in a political campaign etc. I consider terms limits to be just as bad.

Real reform might be in how Congress does things. No riders and other attachments to bills etc.

bcspace wrote:I do consider it to be unconstitutional. I should be able to spend my money any way I want (and how much I want) in a political campaign etc. I consider terms limits to be just as bad.

Real reform might be in how Congress does things. No riders and other attachments to bills etc.

How would you effect that?

It just so happens that term limits are included as an amendment to the Constitution, and are therefore Constitutional in the strictest sense of the word. As for you being allowed to spend your money however you please, if it eclipses my voice in how this nation is run, that's a plutocracy, not a democracy. I want no part in a plutocracy.

I've supported this idea for years. Until and unless we make this change, politicians will continue to be, by force, prostitutes. In the earlier years of our country, massive amounts of money that only the very rich could provide was not necessary to run a campaign. Now, due to the demands of media, it is.