http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/17/new-ad-brings-tea-party-progressives-together/

Quote :

"New ad brings Tea Party, Progressives Together (CNN) – Campaign finance reform is the issue that the Tea Party and progressives can agree on – at least in new ads designed to drum up support for the Fair Elections Now Act. But not always at the same time. The legislation -designed to incentivize small donor fundraising in congressional campaigns– is being supported by a six-figure TV ad campaign featuring conservative and progressive voices. Ads with conservative points-of-view will air in Washington, DC during the broadcast networks' Sunday talk shows and on FOX News while ads highlighting progressives and conservatives together are set to air on MSNBC and CNN. "This is not your grandpa's campaign finance reform bill," says David Donnelly, campaign manager for the national effort to pass the Fair Elections Now Act, known as Campaign for Fair Elections. The Fair Elections Now Coalition, including U.S. PIRG, Democracy Matters, Public Campaign, and Public Citizen, among others, is launching ads that showcase a rare occurrence in today's political theater: Tea Party members and Progressives, agreeing. Citizens featured in one ad include progressives at rallies in Louisville, KY and Seattle, WA and Tea Party members interviewed at Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally in DC. They agree that campaign finance practices must change, stating that "Money has too much power" and "Anyone …would be in favor …knowing that their votes would begin to count." "If we could change the way we fund elections, it would make a huge difference," says one rally attendee, identified as progressive. At the "Restoring Honor" rally, a conservative-identified supporter agrees, "This is a much bigger problem than Republican, Democrats." "

Quote :

"The Committee on House Administration will hold a vote on The Fair Elections Now Act on Thursday, September 23rd. Donnelly believes that the proposed campaign finance system will encourage more citizens to support their candidates for Congress and wrest control of campaigns from the hands of corporations."

Here's a little bit on how this voluntary participation program works according to the Fair Elections Now website:

Quote :

"Participating candidates seek support from their communities, not Washington, D.C. * Candidates would raise a large number of small contributions from their communities in order to qualify for Fair Elections funding. Contributions are limited to $100. * To qualify, a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives would have to collect 1,500 contributions from people in their state and raise a total of $50,000."

Even the Coffee Party is putting their weight, such as it is, behind this:

Quote :

"· “We would not dream of having special interests pay the salaries of members of Congress – they get paid by the public for whom they act. Why, then, do we not flinch when special interests pay for their election campaigns?” · “It’s time we return to government of, by, and for the people – not government of, bought, and paid for by special interests.” · “As long as politicians are accountable to the corporations and lobbyists who finance their campaigns, they’re never going to be accountable to the people that elected them. It’s time ordinary Americans had their voices heard. Our elected officials should be concerned with solving our problems and concerns, not those of special interests who can afford to pay for special treatment.” · “The problem with our political system isn’t so much that individual members of Congress are corrupt but that the system is corrupt. Sure, there are bad apples in the barrel, but the real problem is that the barrel is rotten. No matter how honest you are, when your ability to get elected depends on collecting millions of dollars from special interests, there’s no way you can be objective.” · “We should replace corporate-funded elections with Fair Elections. We need to put elections back in the hands of ordinary Americans. Politicians should work for us, not their corporate sponsors.” · “It’s time we take the “for sale” sign off the Capitol lawn. We can’t afford the price we’re paying for corporate-sponsored government. We need to get our elected officials off the fundraising treadmill.”"

Its an interesting idea. No politician is forced to do it, but it opens the option of running for office those aren't independently wealthy or in the pockets of wealthy special interests. I like the quote about the rotten barrel in that it highlights a systematic problem. If every election is "throw the bums out" only to replace them with more bums, maybe the problem is the system itself. Seems to have some bipartisan support too.

[Edited on September 17, 2010 at 9:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2010 8:58:12 PM

Looks like it made it out of committee alive & well

http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=8669637

Quote :

"House Committee Passes Historic Fair Elections Legislation Washington, D.C.—The Committee on House Administration passed the Fair Elections Now Act today, an historic step forward in putting elections back in the hands of voters, according to the Campaign for Fair Elections. “With this committee vote, voters won and special interests lost,” said David Donnelly, campaign manager of the Campaign for Fair Elections. “Chairman Robert Brady and his colleagues on the committee must be commended for their strong leadership on Fair Elections, and for voting to place government back into the hands of the American people.” “This is a huge step forward for voters who feel ignored by Washington,” said Common Cause President and CEO Bob Edgar. “Because as long as we have politicians answering to corporations and lobbyists who finance their campaigns, they will never be accountable to the people who elected them. Common Cause applauds this committee vote today and urges the full House to vote on the bill as soon as possible.”"

9/23/2010 5:51:43 PM

I read the summary, and I'm still not fully sure of how it works. First of all, who pays for this funding? It says a "small fee on large government contractors." I don't get that. Shouldn't contracts be going out to whatever private entity can provide the best service at the lowest cost to the taxpayer? Why should a government contractor have to pay a fee, what do they even have to do with the electoral process? How does the media cost reduction work? The government just pays 20% of the tab?

I'm also not seeing how this funding is really going to solve anything. It may allow some people that lack funds to get more funding than they would have been able to before, should they qualify for the program. Problem is, there's nothing stopping a Linda McMahon from spending tens of millions of dollars on a primary. I don't think we'll have "fair elections" until there's a major shift in terms of what the government is allowed to do. Becoming a career politician is far too lucrative under the current model.

9/23/2010 7:46:14 PM

Quote :

"there's nothing stopping a Linda McMahon from spending tens of millions of dollars on a primary."

True. Its a voluntary program to enter. But in most cases you don't have millionaires self financing campaigns, and that doesn't change the fact that our political system is enhanced by being less reliant on wealthy interests, and by being more open access.

Same reason I made this/feel its a good thing...fairness/open access & all that:
"NC Supremes hear Greens/Libertarians Ballot Access"
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=601863

9/23/2010 10:29:19 PM

http://www.democracy-nc.org/news/blog/2010/10/04/monday-october-4-2010/

Quote :

"Secret sponsors: Interest groups are spending five times as much in this election as in the last midterm election – and the identities of the money suppliers behind these groups are mostly unknown, in contrast to 2006 when 90% of the donors were disclosed. Public Citizens has a new report analyzing “fading disclosure” and the New York Times shows how hard it can be to learn who’s behind a nonprofit corporation, the vehicle of choice for 2010."

I think a corporate stand by your ad thing would be a good thing, even if it only went into effect like 8 weeks before an election (I believe some campaign finance regulation has had kick in dates near elections)

10/5/2010 2:34:27 AM

Quote :

"Interest groups are spending five times as much in this election as in the last midterm election"

Just goes to show, the more the government tries to do, the less fair elections are going to be. As a free society cannot clamp down on elections, the only sensible solution is to have the government do less. As the power and money flow away from Washington, so will the lobbyists.

10/5/2010 8:58:22 AM

Quote :

"As the power and money flow away from Washington, so will the lobbyists. "

so true

Think you can reform this crap away is naive, imo. It works as well as gun bans in cities.

10/5/2010 9:23:02 AM

lol @ the idea that laundering campaign funds through non-profits is a new thing.

10/5/2010 9:46:03 AM

Quote :

"Fair Elections Now"

Yeah, let's focus on funding.

...nothing wrong with ballot access.
...nothing wrong with the 2-party system.

Yeah. Too much money -- that's the main problem with elections.

Quote :

"Seems to have some bipartisan support too."

Precisely the kind of thinking that we all need to get away from.
Bipartisanship ignores the millions of us who are neither dems nor repubs.
What we need is omnipartisan support, or non-partisan support.
Simply saying, "These two groups like it." isn't democracy.

Quote :

""NC Supremes hear Greens/Libertarians Ballot Access" http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=601863"

(At least you have a link to the real issue...)
ballot access >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign funding

[Edited on October 5, 2010 at 9:58 AM. Reason : ]

10/5/2010 9:49:12 AM

Quote :

"Just goes to show, the more the government tries to do, the less fair elections are going to be. As a free society cannot clamp down on elections, the only sensible solution is to have the government do less. As the power and money flow away from Washington, so will the lobbyists."

The hell it does. You think special interests are all about paying the government to do things? Did it occur to you that lobbyists also pay the congress to be docile - to look the other way? I'm sure there's plenty of money to be made in legislation to reduce the power of government.

10/5/2010 10:20:23 AM

Suspicious . . . as is most anything involving congress self-regulating their own electoral process (or that Supplanter is excited about)

Quote :

"small fee on large government contractors"

this is already technically illegal. But they all have PACs that contribute to political campaigns.



The person we need to get in here and comment is LunaK

[Edited on October 5, 2010 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

10/5/2010 11:08:16 AM

I'm sure there have been lobbyists trying to get Congress to "look the other way," i.e. subvert justice, and I'm certain they've been successful. If some person, or business, is getting a free pass to violate rights, then our government has failed us.

Most lobbyists are not openly pushing for that, though. They're looking for legislation - new programs, new funding, new subsidies, new special benefits that the average person doesn't receive. It's too easy. You support a candidate financially, get them into office, and that candidate (on his own accord, of course) throws in a special subsidy/program/whatever in the next 3,000 page omnibus bill. No one will know about it, because no one reads it. If we used the Constitution, this wouldn't be an issue, but we don't, so it is. Stealing more money to pay for election funding doesn't resolve the core issue.

10/5/2010 11:12:47 AM

Quote :

"Yeah. Too much money -- that's the main problem with elections"

Oh I'm sorry - it IS the biggest problem with how elections are right now. Those who have the money win the elections. They're able to get their message across to voters. Seeing as how voters tend to pick the names they recognize, they're the ones that win the elections.

Also, whether or not people think it's happening, the $$ influences politics. Moreso the PAC and lobbyist money than individual money, but it still happens.

Think about this:

Quote :

"Despite promises to change how Washington works, Obama has actually perfected the game of giving political allies and donors key ambassadorships in countries like England, France, Japan, Spain, Finland, and Australia. And in the eyes of foreign service association, he’s become the worst abuser, putting political allies in 44 percent of the top 185 ambassadorial positions. By comparison, 30 percent of George W. Bush’s ambassadors were political appointees and 28 percent of Bill Clinton’s political allies and donors."

So those who have raised him the most amount of money got the big jobs. Tell me money doesn't buy you influence.

I don't really understand how this Fair Elections Now works, but I don't see any major overhaul of the financial system happening right now.

10/5/2010 11:21:19 AM

Overturn Citizens United!

10/5/2010 12:51:01 PM

the Citizens United decision was one of the better ones the SCOTUS has made in recent years. I'm all for overturning the two decisions that recognized corporations as persons, but so long as they are they have the unfortunate right to contribute to political campaigns like anyone else.


Also, few know this, but when Roger Stone formed Citizens United it's full title was Citizens United Not Threatened. Interesting acronym considering it's primary target.

10/5/2010 1:09:42 PM

lol at indy's many rollie eyes, followed by an oh yeah, you did talk about/make a thread about ballot access too

10/5/2010 2:57:41 PM

Quote :

"Too much money -- that's the main problem with elections. "

To be fair, if you had more money (or a more equal share of campaign money, anyway) you could use it to attract more people and acquire ballot access and break the two-party system.

Yes, the two main parties have set up high entry barriers, but you could overcome these with enough supporters, which you could get if they liked your message, which they won't ever hear if you don't have any money to spend on telling them.

10/5/2010 3:37:32 PM

Quote :

"Most lobbyists are not openly pushing for that, though. They're looking for legislation - new programs, new funding, new subsidies, new special benefits that the average person doesn't receive. It's too easy."

What are you basing this opinion on? I can state the opposite and make it sound just as reasonable. Are you just speculating or did someone do an independent study of lobbyism, separating "do more" from "do less"?

10/5/2010 3:52:12 PM

Quote :

"The hell it does. You think special interests are all about paying the government to do things? Did it occur to you that lobbyists also pay the congress to be docile - to look the other way? I'm sure there's plenty of money to be made in legislation to reduce the power of government."

Does not contradict what I said. The more government does, they more it is threatening to do, so the more people will lobby to be left alone. Same outcome: as government does more, the less fair elections are, as more of the election is determined by people either trying to rob others or trying to avoid being robbed.

10/5/2010 4:30:34 PM

Replacing the current vote system with an instant runoff system would fix more problems than campaign finance "reform".

10/5/2010 8:44:31 PM

^
Agreed 100%$*!!

Quote :

"if you had more money (or a more equal share of campaign money, anyway) you could use it to attract more people and acquire ballot access and break the two-party system."

Why, in our system of checks and balances, should that be the only way?
Sometimes, judges side with the little guy, the poor guy....

How did the RNC and DNC get so powerful anyway? Aren't they private organizations?
Everyone's so worried about corporations buying elections...
...well, the dems and repubs buy them all the time. Why do we allow that?

Nearly every aspect of the 2-party system is bogus and harmful to the interests of a free democratic republic.

It simply has to go, and playing by the republicrat/demopublican rules to do it is unrealistic and perhaps impossible.


[Edited on October 5, 2010 at 10:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2010 10:00:55 PM

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/04/720439/officials-from-5-states-fight.html

Quote :

"Officials from 5 states fight unlimited spending NEW YORK -- Elected officials from five states are forming a coalition aimed at fighting unlimited campaign spending by corporations and independent groups. The group is known as CAPS. That stands for Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending. It was formed in response to the so-called Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court. The ruling allows direct corporate funding of televised political ads. New York City Public Advocate Bill DeBlasio said Monday that CAPS will urge corporations to voluntarily agree not to spend money on political campaigns. It also will press corporations and other groups to disclose all their donors."

It might be a lot to hope for voluntary transparency, but I'm glad there is a group out there to shine light on the worst cases.

http://saveourelections.com/?page_id=2

Quote :

"Government Contracting: We need to know whether companies that receive our tax dollars spend corporate funds in politics. We will engage the vendors that transact the most business with our cities and states to ensure accountability and transparency in their political spending practices."

I thought that was an interesting point. The more gov moves towards devolution in terms of contracting out, we need to be sure that we're contracting out for the right reasons.

10/5/2010 10:33:32 PM

Quote :

" Does not contradict what I said. The more government does, they more it is threatening to do, so the more people will lobby to be left alone. Same outcome: as government does more, the less fair elections are, as more of the election is determined by people either trying to rob others or trying to avoid being robbed."

Alternatively, as government does less, people/interests lobby more to get it to do things. Your logic only follows due to your preconceived notions about what people want.

In any case, I don't think any amount of government power reduction will have a significant effect on corruption. The lesser the power of the government, the lesser the amount of money it takes to saturate it with corruption. Also the people's desire to hold it accountable will go down proportionally.

10/5/2010 11:17:44 PM

Quote :

"Alternatively, as government does less, people/interests lobby more to get it to do things."

But they are not going to lobby to have government "do anything", the people are going to lobby for the government to do what the people want to have done. If people must lobby to have the government do what we can all agree it should do, then the barriers are sufficiently high to keep special interest legislation, which we can all agree it should not do, to a minimum.

10/5/2010 11:41:13 PM

If you're going to separate "people" from "special interests", then I have to point out that its much easier for "special interests" to lobby government than "people.

Changing the size/scope of government won't change the power special interests have over it.

10/6/2010 11:24:27 AM

Corporations should not be allowed to influence elections and lobbying on the hill needs to be ended. None of those by the way will ever happen.

10/6/2010 12:32:25 PM

Quote :

"How did the RNC and DNC get so powerful anyway? Aren't they private organizations? Everyone's so worried about corporations buying elections... ...well, the dems and repubs buy them all the time. Why do we allow that?"

10/6/2010 12:55:45 PM

I won't when I am King.

10/6/2010 1:04:14 PM

^^The only way to buy an election is to pay or arrange to rig it.

If the vote-counting is fair, and someone says the election was "bought" - there has to be more than one player.

That is, if the votes are tallied correctly, the voters sold their vote. You can't buy something without there being a seller. And any society that does not have enough free-thinking, educated folks to resist what those corporations/parties can buy (ads, tv shows, etc.) is pretty screwed anyway.

Ultimately, voters are the problem. The drug problem in America cannot be solved by attacking supply. Political corruption cannot be stopped by regulating supply. In both cases, it's the demand that needs to be addressed, or no change is possible.

Fine - get rid of corporate lobbying, two-party-only ballot access, or any other "evil," and the difference will only be cosmetic. Re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, so to speak. Americans are easy to fool, quick to tolerate corruption, etc.....fix that, and we've got something.

10/6/2010 1:40:42 PM

OK lets just fix human nature. That's a realistic approach.

10/6/2010 1:42:43 PM

Quote :

"OK lets just fix human nature. That's a realistic approach."

Government is big and corrupt because we vote for it to be. There are times and places where government has been less corrupt.

To stick with my comparison to drugs - demand is the problem. Social changes can lower drug demand, while everyone still recognizes the problem will never go away. Similarly, public embrace of corruption can decrease, while knowing corruption will never go away.

The culture, morality, religion, and philosophy of the people affect governance far more than whatever system they choose to use. An independent, principled, educated populace under monarchy would be far more free, and satisfied with their government, than a democracy when society is made up of individuals who cannot govern themselves, let alone other people.

10/6/2010 2:25:26 PM

Quote :

"lobbying on the hill needs to be ended"

whether or not you guys believe it - lobbying actually provides a necessary service. don't think for a second that politicians actually have the time to read through the bills that they're voting on.

10/6/2010 2:27:44 PM

Perhaps that would be a good start

10/6/2010 2:31:42 PM

and that's necessary.....how?

10/6/2010 2:32:24 PM

Quote :

"Why, in our system of checks and balances, should that be the only way? Sometimes, judges side with the little guy, the poor guy...."

That's great. But if all the ballot barriers collapsed tomorrow and you people could run for everything from President to local dog catcher it wouldn't matter much of a damn because there aren't many of you and there aren't going to be many of you unless you can attract more people, which you can't do without money for outreach. If libertarians know a way to make commercials for free you should probably get on that.

No matter what it all boils down to either money or recognition. Incumbents don't need to spend a lot because people know who they are. Most people don't know you from Adam's housecat. Which means you either need to have more money or everybody else needs to have less.

10/6/2010 2:36:19 PM

^Ban campaign advertising. Still give them equal time on news programs.

Just a list of names on a ballot.

10/6/2010 2:49:15 PM

Then how would you decide who gets on the list; who gets air-time?

10/6/2010 3:04:15 PM

EVERYONE

10/6/2010 3:04:49 PM

Truly inspired

10/6/2010 3:07:32 PM

I think Congress should feel more like jury duty. Not in the sense that people would be picked randomly from a pool, though. Congress shouldn't need to convene more than a few times a year. It wouldn't be as glamorous, as it'd go back to a true "civil service" position. The federal government should be limited to its basic functions, and if it were, no one would be spending 50 million to buy a Senate seat. Representatives would continue working in whatever profession they did, taking off a few weeks a year to take care of business. You wouldn't have multiple cable news networks running 24/7 reporting on federal policy, because federal policy would be limited to mundane administrative tasks that no one cared too much about. You could have term limits, and no one would be running for re-election, or voting as if they were.

That would be an ideal situation, I think. Politician should never be a viable profession, because as long as it is, politicians will be acting in a way that benefits them and their friends, rather than the country at large.

10/6/2010 3:55:20 PM

Direct and frequent internet elections on all major legislation. Relegate the politicians to secretaries that package the bills but do little else.

And of course ban advertising.

10/6/2010 4:47:41 PM

Replace the speaker of the house with a unicorn. Chewbacca for minority whip!

10/8/2010 10:44:06 AM

"Despite complaints, Democrats still far outspending Republicans in midterm elections"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44216.html#ixzz13XffUM2Q

10/27/2010 9:16:48 PM

how is that even possible when those evil corporations are buying the elections for republicans now?

10/27/2010 9:19:31 PM