What do you think of public campaign financing?
While following the volumulous and often contentious "What do you think of Lynda Hopkins" thread over the past few weeks, it became clear to me that all root cause of all of this angst is political campaigns financed by private "donations" -- particularly "donations" from corporations and dark money organizations. I put "donations" in quotes because they are not "donations" at all. They are "legalized bribes."
The 5th District Supervisorial contest is an archetype of how the private campaign donation system is destroying our democracy. Everything objectionable about the race is a result of the private donation system: the mystery candidates, the puppet show aspect, the "who is getting how much from where" bickering, candidates having to worry about where money is coming from and how that looks rather than discussing new ideas, and the fossil party hack who touts her ability to work the system.
Experience has shown that publicly-financed political campaigns makes it possible for average people to successfully run for public office, serve a term or two, and then return to private life -- negating the need for the professional politico class. It creates office-holders who work in the public's interest instead of serving "special interests." It does much to make government more creative, responsive and effective.
So what do you think of public campaign financing?
- Kirsten
Re: What do you think of public campaign financing?
I don't know why we have to have full scale campaigns at all really. Couldn't we just create an official government website and allow each candidate to submit documentation detailing their platform, clear statements about here they stand on the issues we care about, then have a few debates and call it done? We could make political campaigning/marketing obsolete.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Glia:
...So what do you think of public campaign financing?
Re: What do you think of public campaign financing?
That's pretty much what they do in Europe and Scandinavia... you know, those filthy impoverished socialist countries (a little humor there).
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by mouse:
I don't know why we have to have full scale campaigns at all really. ...
Re: What do you think of public campaign financing?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Glia:
That's pretty much what they do in Europe and Scandinavia... you know, those filthy impoverished socialist countries (a little humor there).
Just finished dinner with two guys visiting from Sweden. They have real concerns for their country and think they must close the borders before it is too late. "you see," they explain, "it's well known among the refuges that Sweden has the best benefits in Europe so they are all trying to move through Germany to Sweden. We are only 9 million and we can't absorb it. And, worst of all, we think that once they get here they will be Swedish, but you have the Sunni and Shiite guys next to each other in a public housing, and they cannot stop fighting".
Having a homogenous society really helps with socialism.
And, in the US we do have a bill of rights. We do allow freedom of expression. And we consider a candidate paying for his own advocacy of candidacy an act of expression. And we allow individuals to also pay for advertising their opinion. And if two or more get together, they can also pay to advertise (that's a PAC). You might not like all the consequences of the bill of rights, but they are what we have agreed to base the country's laws on.
AND: we do have public finance of presidential elections and EVERY candidate refuses the limitations applied to public finance (including Bernie, Hillary and Donald). A very progressive idea that, like most progressive ideas, fails when it meets the reality of the human beast.
Re: What do you think of public campaign financing?
I believe that the candidates refuse public financing because it's individually voluntary. If one candidate accepted it and the others did not, it would be a considerable disadvantage for the one that did. It's a system that is set up to fail and it's being very successful at that.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
...
AND: we do have public finance of presidential elections and EVERY candidate refuses the limitations applied to public finance (including Bernie, Hillary and Donald). A very progressive idea that, like most progressive ideas, fails when it meets the reality of the human beast.
Re: What do you think of public campaign financing?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker:
I believe that the candidates refuse public financing because it's individually voluntary. If one candidate accepted it and the others did not, it would be a considerable disadvantage for the one that did. It's a system that is set up to fail and it's being very successful at that.
Candidate's refuse the public finance option because it set's ridiculously low spending limits. For 2016, the limits are: General Election Limit: $96.14 million
Overall Primary Limit: $48.07 million
With General Election expenditures currently being over $1 Billion, this is laughable.
However, if it included a specified amount of public interest (advertising) time on the the broadcast airwaves (TV/Radio) that the public owns and leases out at absurding low rates, it would bring down the cost of campaigns significantly.
Re: What do you think of public campaign financing?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
Just finished dinner with two guys visiting from Sweden. They have real concerns for their country and think they must close the borders before it is too late. "you see," they explain, "it's well known among the refuges that Sweden has the best benefits in Europe so they are all trying to move through Germany to Sweden. We are only 9 million and we can't absorb it. And, worst of all, we think that once they get here they will be Swedish, but you have the Sunni and Shiite guys next to each other in a public housing, and they cannot stop fighting".
Your Swedish buddies are right. They should have closed their borders 40 years ago. The guest workers from Turkey have been nothing but trouble. Muslims and Muslims cannot get along regardless of what country they are in. Muslims and atheists do not mix. Middle Eastern culture and modern civilization do not mix. Sorry if that is harsh, but it is true.
But back to the discussion around public campaign finance. The reason why there are all these Muslim refugees in the first place is the de-facto corporatocracy that has taken over the United States Congress courtesy of campaign "donations" and now dark money. It promotes and benefits from a constant state of war.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
Having a homogenous society really helps with socialism.
A common trope having no basis in fact. check out What Americans Don't Get About Nordic Countries for a discussion from a qualified source.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
And, in the US we do have a bill of rights. We do allow freedom of expression. And we consider a candidate paying for his own advocacy of candidacy an act of expression. And we allow individuals to also pay for advertising their opinion. And if two or more get together, they can also pay to advertise (that's a PAC). You might not like all the consequences of the bill of rights, but they are what we have agreed to base the country's laws on.
And you just wandered directly into the corporate personhood tar-pit. Can individuals compete with corporations when money equals free speech? Does a corporation really have free speech? Does a corporation have a mouth?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by spam1:
AND: we do have public finance of presidential elections and EVERY candidate refuses the limitations applied to public finance (including Bernie, Hillary and Donald). A very progressive idea that, like most progressive ideas, fails when it meets the reality of the human beast.
Others have been addressing the lame and ineffective public campaign funding for the POTUS contest. I'm thinking much, much closer to home: every public office in the state of California -- from school board to the governor.
Right now there is no public campaign finance allowed in California (like most states) with the exception of charter cities. Getting back to my original premise: when effective local and state public campaign finance is in place, it results in robust and legitimate democracy, new ideas, and new people running. It also goes a long way toward making moot the perennial professional politico class (e.g., Noreen Evans) and the partisan polarization that we have now.
Re: What do you think of public campaign financing?
Hey, I would sure learn a lot if you could elaborate on the following: "The reason why there are all these Muslim refugees in the first place is the de-facto corporatocracy that has taken over the United States Congress ..."
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Glia:
...But back to the discussion around public campaign finance. The reason why there are all these Muslim refugees in the first place is the de-facto corporatocracy that has taken over the United States Congress courtesy of campaign "donations" and now dark money. It promotes and benefits from a constant state of war. ...
