PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING
We must have public financing of campaigns. I know you think you don't want to pay for it...but you already ARE!
You pay hundreds and thousands of times what you would if the politicians actually answered to you and not greedy corporate criminals. You pay thousands of times more in a CORRUPTION SURCHARGE!
YOU PAY FOR PRIVATELY FUNDED ELECTIONS RIGHT NOW!
Every no bid contract, every unpaid royalty on an oil lease, every blocked piece of legislation, every blocked investigation, every effort to get healthcare for all, every blocked attempt for a living wage, every needless nuclear warhead that will never be used, every mountaintop removal mining permit OK’d, every case of cancer caused by lax environmental rules or enforcement, every prison built instead of a school...YOU PAY AND PAY AND PAY!
And to add insult to injury, where do corporations get the money they give politicians in order to insure they can roll right over you whenever they want? FROM YOU! The cost of these payoffs is passed on to YOU the consumer!
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE COUNTRY!
Whatever you think is the most important issue facing the country…forget about it. It’s going to be decided in favor of those in power. It will be watered down in favor of those who finance campaigns and control corporate media sources.
You think the health care debate is going to come out in your favor or Pfizer’s? You think we are really going to cut military spending when more than half of the military budget for the entire world is being lavished on some of the biggest campaign contributors there are? How about Bank reform? Wall Street? Big Pharma? Iraq? The environment? Just exactly how do you see any of that working out in your favor in our current system?
Our system is broken. Our government does not work for the people. It works for – or in fear of – people who can spend a lot of money, access a lot of media, or have a lot of power in society.
IT’S THE MODERATES!
What people don’t understand is that it is not necessary to buy off the whole government in order for corporate, big money interests to get its way…every time. You merely need to control either the moderates and/or the committee heads in order to assure that whatever compromise is reached it will ALWAYS benefit BIG MONEY!
In Congress, you have partisans on either side, in safe districts, with entrenched interests who won’t compromise and are at no risk of being voted out.
Then you have the folks in the purple districts. They could get the ax anytime. Their elections could come down to which candidate has a few thousand more to spend. If Big Money goes their way they stay, if it goes to their opponent they are out.
These are the people you count on to forge the compromise between the two extremes and these are the very people who are most vulnerable to big money coming in hard and heavy against them.
COMPROMISE IS ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF BIG MONEY!
The current system assures that any compromise between the partisan extremes will be concluded in favor of big money. Even the most conscientious moderate politician in a contested state MUST cater to big money or they will not stay in congress.
WHAT HAPPENED TO CONGRESS?
Do you wonder what has happened to democrats in congress over the last 8 years…the spinelessness and cowardice evidenced by these people?
This is the result of what happens to an organization over time when anyone who fights big money gets weeded out…even if it’s only one or two per election. Eventually you are left with …well, what we have now…a bunch of corporate lap dogs.
Comments (15)
While I agree with the problem, I disagree with the solution. Let us have unlimited contributions with full, instant, and open disclosure of the contributor. I believe that twenty million people united by the internet and making $10 Paypal contributions will win out every time.
Now just give us a tool to create the consensus about what needs to be done and how to do it (my conservative ideas are a little different from yours, but have the same aim) -- and the answer there isn't government OR money.
Let the corporations and big-party types continue to pay for THEIR candidates -- call it a tax on elitism -- and let the people CHOOSE who gets their money.
I do agree with this idea I know that in the last election John McCain wanted to go with this idea and Obama said he would, but in the usual Obama style he backed out so he could get millions from corrupt people and organizations. I also think that if you tell the American people you will and go back on it that you should lose all campaign contributions.
2. Free Media Election Time: Four to eight weeks prior to any presidential, senatorial, or primary election, free media will be provided to anyone with the required signatures to run for office. Free and equal air time for all those who have the requirements to run for office. Equal meaning same amount of air time for all candidates with rotating order of appearance. For instance, each candidate will have a five minute daily spot on all channels, twice daily, one spot AM, one spot PM. The time slot must rotate as well, so as to not impact a show more then needed. Monday time slot 1pm following Monday slot 2pm and so on. Air time is defined as all television and radio channels. Regional channels will be responsible for local congressional candidate’s air time.
• This will not replace the current Democratic Party and Republican Party system; it will enhance the choice that we the citizens demand for these prized and sensitive offices. Traditionally only candidates who generate exorbitant amounts of donations could effectively run for public office. Only those with wealth or those who have sold their souls for wealth, could run for office. This adjustment to the election system will help remove special interests in funding and buying of our political system. This reform would help to open up debate on issues that are otherwise would not be mentioned in the old system of elections.
• A mandatory week after the vote waiting period to count, recount and verify the validity of every voter in each presidential election cycle. At the end of this week period the vote will be assessed as to the winner of the election, at that time any of the candidates my dispute sections of the vote where fraud may be perceived. Should an area of the election be determined to be fraudulent then a recount or revote in that district may commence and a further waiting period to an announcement may be initiated. FCC regulations to require free media coverage of presidential and senatorial candidates will be included in their license agreements, retroactively.
• The multiple election cycle process. At the eighth week mark before an election or primary election, free media will be provided for all candidates. At the fourth week mark before the election, a public secondary run-off-vote will limit the candidates to a smaller number. The November 4th general public election will ultimately decide the outcome of the election via public majority decision. The discussion to modify or do away with electoral vote system should be determined. Extra run-off vote dates may be decided, prior to November 4 determination.
• The monopoly of the current two party system has narrowed or limited congresses ability to be a check against the excessiveness of the executive branch of government. During George W. Bush’s first term of office, congress held a republican majority of yes men to the white house. The Republican Party is mainly concerned with two overriding ideals, lower taxes for the rich and increasing defense spending. Anything beside these two points is a side issue to this party. To confirm this fact, one only needs to ask this question, “Why would the president and congress vote to reduce taxes for the rich, twice, during a time of two wars.” Any sane man would say this is criminally negligent for a war time government to not ask its citizens to make sacrifices for the war effort in the period for which it was incurred in.
• Free media election reform would bring in more parties and more debate of real issues. The current two party system produces nomine leaders who stop talking about issues in fear that if they say anything it would only lend ammo to the other side. This is a silly system, where corporate funding influence often does buy votes from a limited candidate choice. The initial caucuses does provide a small range of party nominees to run for president, but this system also chokes’ out the independent candidates because they do not have the master list of party members to draw upon. A grass roots effort only works for the well organized two party system.
• Note: A single act of Congress to provide free media to anyone who meets election requirements could make our elections “unbuyable by special interests.” (Vidal, 2004)
• The definition of Plutocracy, ruled by the wealthy or power provided by wealth. This is the system of governance we have today in the United States of America. It costs far too much money to run for political office. In order to acquire such vast amounts of wealth, our congressmen must bend their knee, their ethics, and corporate promises to attain the financial backing to run a campaign. The soul that is left over after promising the world is a known commodity, we see it every day on the floor of congress. It is no wonder that once most president pass the Iowa caucus they ditch their platform of ideals and adhere to touchy feely speeches. The less campaign promises to the public the less they get nailed on them later when they cave to lobbyists.
kdtroxel:
OK, select each idea separately and post them as "New Ideas". Many I would support. See who agrees.
Chloe:
It's interesting that your posts here all seem to criticize democrats and your ideas seem to be for limiting social spending. Why are you here and not some wingnut blog?
Boy you got a great idea. But congress would be paid more money by the lobbiest to stop the bill.
Before this ever happens, i'd be able to walk on water first!
Free Election Media Time is one of my main arguments for a Federal Constitutional Convention, simply because congress will never pass legislation that would curtail there two party monopoly of the America government.
William and Troxel
You are both right to a point.
They would never do it WILLINGLY. It is our just to create the 90% of the US population that DEMANDS not SUPPORTS it, by pointing out to people how much more they pay in taxes by NOT having public financing.
It will never happen WITHOUT THE MASSIVE SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
It is up to each of us to CREATE that support by making the people realize that the wealthy and powerful will always be able to water down or kill atogether any bill that they don't like.
If I had worded this:
"Do you want to pay for politicians to spend all your hard earned tax money on negetive camapaigning."
...there would be little support for Public Financing of campaigns. And you can be sure that the people hold power today have a vested interest in seeing that be the way public financing is perceived.
It is our job to point out that no matter what you think the most important issues in the country are, there is a wealthy interest with a big thumb on the scale who wants to see to it that the outcome is not in the interests of the little guy.
The fact that Obama got the majority of his campaign financing in increments of $25 is promising, but clearly an anomoly, and it can't possibly be repeated often enough to overcome the avalance of funding that is arrayed against progressive causes. We need to actually change THE SYSTEM not just the individual politicians.
You are all making the presumptions that:
The US is a democracy; and
You know what a democracy is; and
That democracy is centrally about majorities and elections, and votes.
You have been conned. Thucydides, the Irish Monks, the Finn kingdoms, Thomas Paine, Abe Lincoln and Lord Acton would all tell you the same thing.
What you need is real democracy. For excellent reasons, Lincoln lyrically overstated the meaning with his "Government of the people, by the people and for the people", which I would paraphrase in contemporary idiom and context as that system in which the thrust and direction of policy formulation is the product of informed electoral consensus.
The plutocratic elites have indoctrinated you with beliefs that people will never agree (in fact agreement is regulated only by access to information), and that the cities of today are too big (which is also nonsense, size has nothing to do with consensus).
In my experience, people will believe what they want to believe and if anyone here wants an article elaborating on these points, ask me on tonyryan43@gmil.com
http://www.enddrugprohibition.com/
AND
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6841-4049
Sounds good to me.
But it'll never fly until the masses understand
“Who Owns the Media?” Idea #664,
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3276-4049
Unfortunately, you are dead right. The media owner monopolies will need to be ended first. In Australia, Rupert Murdoch controls all news media, including government-owned TV.
The public own the air waves; we just rent them out to the networks. If we write in laws to allow free equal media time for all those with requirements to run for office, then they must comply or loose FCC licensing. The air time costs the US taxpayer NOTHING. The free air time must be limited to speeches from the candidate in person (taped), no advertisements allowed on the free time. Once this rule is writing into the FCC licensing agreement, we the people can begin to have a broader choice of candidates. With increase in competition, candidates will have to state more ideals, platforms, and legislation ideas to appeal to a wide range of voter demands. I firmly hope we can loose the feel good/bad campaigns and focus on real problems and issues. The main thrust of this is that citizens who run for elected office will not have to raise exorbitant amounts of money to reach an audience. Television reaches nearly everyone and it should be free for candidates to reach them all and provide a format for diverse ideals.
Free Media Election Time. Link: http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4136-4049
Paper Ballot Requirement in all Fifty States. Link: http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4137-4049
Congressional Term Limits. Link: http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4141-4049
End United States Sponsored Torture. Link: http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4152-4049
Repeal H.R. 4541: Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Link: http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4166-4049
Repeal S. 900 (106th Congress): Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Link: http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4165-4049
I agree. This is an important issue facing our nation today.
According to the 2009 Global Corruption Barometer released yesterday, "55% of respondents in high-income countries report it is common for bribes to influence the policy-making process!"
Is the US Lobby system a form of authorized bribery?
The Lobby System disenfranchises all citizens by allowing corporations to essentially write or re-write favorable legislature.
Is this corruption? State Capture by powerful oligopolies?
Antitrust laws have been severely weakened by these oligopolies monopolistic tactics and by the strength of perpetual corporate immortality and its rights as citizen.
President Obama must follow through on his promise to reform (remove) the Lobby System that legitimizes corruption and undermines democracy world-wide.
To possibly re-enact Sherman-Antitrust-Act or Clayton-Antitrust-Act and to definitely repeal corporate personhood.
More at http://activism101.ning.com/forum/topics/is-it-ok-for-your
Amen to that.
Democracy cannot function in an environment in which corporations become persons, or wealth dictates access to influence.
As Activistmotivator points out, all lobbies disenfranchise the electorate. The earlier suggestion that Internet users form their own lobby is myopic. This merely disenfranchises those who cannot afford a PC and ISP fees; which is around 20% of the nation.
It is essential that all political candidates have access to the same free pro-forma public statement of intent, but most people now believe that this is where policies begin. In a real democracy policy formulation begins in the electorate, as do priorities thereof. The US has never even experimented with this, although most other western nations were partially driven this way until three decades ago.
In summation:
Media political campaigning must become illegal;
Corporations legally depersonalized;
A proforma policy statement made accessible and free to all candidates.
This would kill off policy promotion and return formulation to the people/the electorate, where it belongs. That is what Lincoln meant by 'Government by the people'.