public financing of elections - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

t walgamuth · #1 10-12-2006, 08:09 AM

i heard on NPR yesterday that new mexico (or was it arizona) and maine have public financing of elections. they didnt give a lot of detail but it sounded intreuging. (sp?) i guess it is on the ballot in california this time around.

i have been a long time advocate of this general idea but have lacked any details about how it might work.

tom w

Botnst · #2 10-12-2006, 08:17 AM

Fox in charge of henhouse.

B

riethoven · #3 10-12-2006, 08:21 AM

I think it used top be this way but since the PACs are involved it is a freefall into oblivion. Look at McCain Feingold that was a bipartisan effort to reform campaign spending laws, but I don't think it came even close to passing.

This is one of those issues that really effect the little guy trying to campaign because he is squashed by the huge bankrolls of the incumbants. Then there is the rich guy factor as it pertains to guys like Corzine and Lamont. I forget how many millions Corzine contributed to both his Senatorial and Governor campaigns, but it was considerable. Ned Lamont has already ponied up nearly 8 mil. of his own cash in a race that is looking good for Lieberman by at least 8 points.

This issue burns me almost as much as congressional pensions and benefit packages. We could never afford what they have, but we get to pay for theirs.

t walgamuth · #4 10-12-2006, 08:28 AM

anybody have info about maine and new mexico?

tom w

t walgamuth · #5 10-12-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Fox in charge of henhouse.

B

it seems to me that is exactly what we have now.

tom w

Matt L · #6 10-12-2006, 09:45 AM

Unless they give third-parties as much as the big players, it's just another play to perpetually keep Democrats and Republicans in power, at the expense of all others.

I do believe that one day people will wake up to the fact that the vote for either a Democrat or a Republican is the vote thrown away.

mikemover · #7 10-12-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

Unless they give third-parties as much as the big players, it's just another play to perpetually keep Democrats and Republicans in power, at the expense of all others.

I do believe that one day people will wake up to the fact that the vote for either a Democrat or a Republican is the vote thrown away.

Yep.

They have become one and the same. Saying a lot, accomplishing little (except for keeping themselves in power).

Taxpayer funded campaigns is bad, BAD idea.

As Bot already said, why should we put the fox in charge of the henhouse?

Enough of my tax dollars are already wasted on thing that I do not approve of, and on things that the federal government should NOT have a hand in to begin with...

Adding campaign funding to this already far-too-long list would just be STUPID.

Mike

t walgamuth · #8 10-12-2006, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

anybody have info about maine and new mexico?

tom w

anybody?

tom w

Botnst · #9 10-12-2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riethoven

I think it used top be this way but since the PACs are involved it is a freefall into oblivion. Look at McCain Feingold that was a bipartisan effort to reform campaign spending laws, but I don't think it came even close to passing.

This is one of those issues that really effect the little guy trying to campaign because he is squashed by the huge bankrolls of the incumbants. Then there is the rich guy factor as it pertains to guys like Corzine and Lamont. I forget how many millions Corzine contributed to both his Senatorial and Governor campaigns, but it was considerable. Ned Lamont has already ponied up nearly 8 mil. of his own cash in a race that is looking good for Lieberman by at least 8 points.

This issue burns me almost as much as congressional pensions and benefit packages. We could never afford what they have, but we get to pay for theirs.

McCain-Feingold passed easily. Three unintended results are: Increase in importance of non-partisan tax-exempt advocacy organizations, inhibition of political speech before an election, and decreasing the power of 3rd-party efforts.

I agree with the benefits thing. Their bipartisan attitude? Tough *****.

Botnst · #10 10-12-2006, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

it seems to me that is exactly what we have now.

tom w

Which fox is the most dangerous? Self-financing government-run campaigns or squabbling special interests seeking to sway voters and legislators?

B

t walgamuth · #11 10-12-2006, 11:24 PM

i have not suggested "self financing government run" campaigns.

i am still hoping for some actual information about maine and new mexico.

tom w

Botnst · #12 10-13-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

i have not suggested "self financing government run" campaigns.

i am still hoping for some actual information about maine and new mexico.

tom w

Public financing = government.

t walgamuth · #13 10-13-2006, 09:06 AM

b, i understand your position on this.

tom w

MS Fowler · #14 10-13-2006, 09:17 PM

I think that public financing of elections is an awful idea.
As an example of the mischef that happen consider this recent event in the "Free" state of Maryland. There was a debate among the candidates for US Senator from Maryland on MD Public TV. There were about a dozen candidates who had filed, and about 7 or eight met the federal requirements, but the televised debate on PUBLIC TV was limited ( arbitrarily) to TWO (2) candidates! The powers that be did not want to allow the "lesser" candidates to have any face time, and they suceeded.
Public funding of elections would create much more stuff of this sort.
No way!...Hell, NO!

t walgamuth · #15 10-13-2006, 09:39 PM

well, now that is obviously the wrong way to do it.

anybody have info on maine or new mexico?

the piece i heard on npr seemed to indicate it is working pretty well.

tom w