Campaign Finance Reform....and the dems

[MS Fowler]

I heard that Barbra Streisand is giving $2 million to the Kerry campaign. Were we not told that big money was "BAD" and that it makes honest people into bad politicians? At least that was some of the reasoning spouted by McCain.
So the demorats, champion of the little guy are actually accepting this large bundle of booty? I am shocked, shocked !
Can you say hypocrisy?
Why do I think this will not be the angle portrayed by the large media outlets?

[Botnst]

Campaign finance reform is stupid. It is a bad idea that grew legs decades ago and is now running amuck through the first amendment.

Better to let anybody anywhere give anything, in any amount to anybody and provide huge fines and jail time for violators of full and complete and timely disclosure.

Thus, if George Soros wanted to give a billion to Kerry, or if a Saudi Prince wants to give Bush a million barrel oil concession--no problem, just report it immediately. Let voters decide if the donation is important.

The current system fails in what it attempts to accomplish--take money out of the system. The thought that you could take money out of a capitalist system is ludicrous. Only a politician would be able to promote that as a viable concept.

Botnst

[TimFreeh]

I like the Botnst approach but I would implement it a slightly different way....

Anybody could give any amount of money to any candiate BUT all contributions must be made via a blind trust. This way the candidate would not know who had given him/her ANY specific amounts of money.

That would take the money out of politics forever.

[Botnst]

Originally posted by TimFreeh
I like the Botnst approach but I would implement it a slightly different way....

Anybody could give any amount of money to any candiate BUT all contributions must be made via a blind trust. This way the candidate would not know who had given him/her ANY specific amounts of money.

That would take the money out of politics forever.

Worth a try.

One of the stupidest things tried is the voluntary contribution from the 1040. Public financing of elections--the political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

B

[moparmike]

Campaign Finance Reform Act is also as Un-Constitutional as Hell. Try to buy some airtime to say "Kerry is anti-gun" or "Bush is a Facist." Its a Felony 30 days before a primary or 60 days before an election.*


Welcome to the US, where the Bill of Rights is optional.


*Unless you own a media outlet. Lord knows that no one in the media has an agenda.

[Botnst]

Deep irony: McCain hoisted by his own desire for suppression of free speech.

Bot

----------------------------------------------------

Analysis: Obama money dooms current public finance

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Oct 19, 4:29 pm ET

WASHINGTON – It wasn't Barack Obama's most critically acclaimed moment.
When the Democratic presidential candidate reneged on his pledge to take public financing for the general election, campaign watchdog groups and newspaper editorialists pounced. They all hoped he would help salvage a broken campaign finance system.

Instead, he created a whole new one, and he destined the current system of public financing to the trash heap.

On Sunday, Obama's campaign announced he had raised more than $150 million in September alone, a previously unimaginable fundraising rate of $5 million a day. Republican rival John McCain, who chose to participate in the public system, has been limited by law to spending only $84 million in September and October.
At Obama's clip, his fundraising will easily surpass the $650 million total spent by President Bush and Democrat John Kerry combined in 2004. Indeed, by using sophisticated new social networking tools to reach legions of small donors, Obama has already exceeded the forecasts of some campaign finance seers who two years ago were predicting the two parties' nominees would each spend about $500 million.

The extraordinary sum vindicated Obama's decision. It also made a public finance system born after the excesses of the Watergate era look decidedly quaint.

"People will look back at 2008 as the year that Barack Obama once and for all destroyed public financing as we know it," said Todd Harris, a Republican strategist who worked on McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. "It will be very difficult four years from now for any candidate to make the case that they should participate in public financing given the obvious financial advantage that Obama has received by opting out."

But while Obama has rewritten campaign finance rules with his use of technology and personal outreach, he has also taken advantage of a changing social and political landscape that suited his message and his celebrity. As a result, his campaign says, he has 3.1 million donors, with more than 600,000 new ones contributing just in September.

Obama reached them through Facebook and MySpace, by e-mail and by phone text. A purchase of Obama merchandise on the Web guaranteed you a place as a donor; so did attendance at his popular and crowded rallies. Those donors, in turn, were encouraged to reach out virally to even more.
"He has developed a donor base that is comparable to what we would consider a donor base for a national political party," said Anthony Corrado, a political scientist and an expert on political money at Colby College in Maine.

But advocates of a public finance system aren't eager to give up on a system that relies on voluntary taxpayer contributions on their annual tax returns. And while Obama backed away from his promise to take public money if McCain did, they want him to live up to his pledge to fix the system if he becomes president.

"The question for Democrats is will they decide to go forward with something that is not to their immediate advantage," said David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch.

Whether other politicians could replicate Obama's feat is certainly an open question. But political campaigns tend to model themselves on the last successful effort. If Obama goes on to win the White House, his fundraising model will be the first chapter in future campaign playbooks.

"The experience of this campaign will lead to a retrospective evaluation that McCain made a mistake in opting in (for public financing) and that Obama did the right thing by opting out," Corrado said.

Some Republicans have argued that McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate so galvanized the Republican base that he might have been able to raise more money for the general election than the $84 million he received.

But McCain and Obama have operated on separate tracks. McCain's fundraising apparatus was not set up like Obama's and McCain has never shown an affinity for fundraising anyway.

Instead, he has had to rely on the Republican National Committee to supplement his restricted finances. And while their combined forces had given them some parity with Obama and the Democratic National Committee, Obama's September performance amounted to a fifth gear that the GOP simply didn't have.

Obama's fundraising advantage has been evident for some time. He is outspending McCain and the RNC by more than 2-1 in advertising; without the RNC, he's outspending McCain nearly 4-1 in TV ads. He's been able to expand the field of competitive states to typically Republican states and secured his standing in typically Democratic states.

Still, it's easy to overstate the significance of Obama's millions. His success so far in national and state public opinion polls also reflects a toxic political environment for McCain and Republicans. Bush's unpopularity and the crisis in the financial markets have hurt Republican candidates up and down the ballot.

And finding the key to unleash a torrent of small donors is only part of a successful political equation. Howard Dean surged as a candidate with his unprecedented Internet fundraising in advance of the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries. He lost.

[davidmash]

Why not no donations of any kind from anyone. All funds for elections are taken out of taxs and each canidate get the same amount. This way no one can 'buy' the election with advertising and what have you.

Obama raised $150 million in one month. No way McCain can get his message out against 2:1 spending (or more). This year as in last election we will get the best POTUS that money can buy.

Campaigns should run for 6 weeks, primaries for 2 months. Put a cap on spending for primaries. Once the finalist are selected, they each get 'x' amount to campaign with and that's it. No muss, no fuss.

[MS Fowler]

Originally Posted by davidmash

Why not no donations of any kind from anyone. All funds for elections are taken out of taxs and each canidate get the same amount. This way no one can 'buy' the election with advertising and what have you.

Obama raised $150 million in one month. No way McCain can get his message out against 2:1 spending (or more). This year as in last election we will get the best POTUS that money can buy.

Campaigns should run for 6 weeks, primaries for 2 months. Put a cap on spending for primaries. Once the finalist are selected, they each get 'x' amount to campaign with and that's it. No muss, no fuss.

David,
What you are proposing would be a huge attack on the first amendment. The freedom of speech guaranteed by that amendment is essentially political speech, and the financing of campaigns has been considered as part of that.

My problem with McCain Feinberg is that it, too is an abridgment of that freedom of speech.
I favor reporting of all contributions, but I do not see how you can go to public funding. Another problem with public funding is that it can be used to aid incumbents at the expense of "new blood".
Go carefully there.

[t walgamuth]

The freedom of speech linkage is a bogus one foisted on us back when the repubs were winning the campaign money wars by getting huge corporate donations.

Although I agreee that spending so much money on campaigning is obscene, the new way of raising it off the internet seems pretty egeletarian to me.

I would limit the time and ways to run a campaign and give the candidates a limited tiime to campaign and give them free air time to eleminate the corrupt method of getting funds from industry.

They do that in England and Canada (I believe) and democracy seems alive and well there.

Tom W

[Botnst]

We need more government regulation of what people can say, and how they say it. That's how we ensure freedom of speech.

B

[tankdriver]

Originally Posted by davidmash

Why not no donations of any kind from anyone. All funds for elections are taken out of taxs and each canidate get the same amount. This way no one can 'buy' the election with advertising and what have you.

I donated money to the candidate I support for president. Why should I lose that right?

I might consider a rule that only allows individual citizens to donate.

[davidmash]

What benefit do you get out of giving money to a candidate? I sure as hell do not give money without expecting something in return. I guess I missed the part where the USC stated you had the right to buy a politician or that the office of POTUS could be purchased by the highest bidder.

I view the link between buying a candidate with cash and freedom about the same way as I view the link between the electoral college and fair representation.

You can still donate to your candidate. Go house to house campaigning, volunteer your time, host a web blog ... do what ever you want. I would just prefer that money be taken out of the equation.

[tankdriver]

Originally Posted by davidmash

What benefit do you get out of giving money to a candidate? I sure as hell do not give money without expecting something in return. I guess I missed the part where the USC stated you had the right to buy a politician or that the office of POTUS could be purchased by the highest bidder.

What I expect in return is a job well done in office on the issues I care about and of which the candidate has policies I approve of.

You can still donate to your candidate. Go house to house campaigning, volunteer your time, host a web blog ... do what ever you want. I would just prefer that money be taken out of the equation.

No, I wouldn't be able to do whatever I want. Because I want to donate money. I want to be able to say, here take this $X, and tell others the positions you hold that I approve of so they can become policy.
If you prefer money to be taken out of the equation, how do you expect candidates to travel between the states? Afford lodging in each state? Host rallies to get their message out?

[davidmash]

I expect public officials to do their job regardless of if I help get them elected or not. I expect them to serve the public good not the interests who got them elected.

I never said they should not get any money. I just don't think corporations/weathly/PAC's should be able to buy, I mean donate to the candidates.

McCain opted for public financing this year and he was still able to campaign.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by davidmash

What benefit do you get out of giving money to a candidate? ....

Interesting point.

To whom would you rather have politicians beholden: tens of thousands of private donors and organized groups or to the federal government?

B