Direckshun
06-14-2011, 01:25 PM
This was brought up in another thread, but I feel we need a return to the topic because there are people on this forum who are holdouts against the idea of public financing.
I think we can all agree to one major postulate: America's politicians (at the very least, on the federal level) are beholden almost entirely to the interests of huge organizations at the expense of (and usually detriment to) Americans as a whole.
If you disagree with that notion, you are welcome to defend it. But I think you are going to be met with a ton of skepticism from your fellow posters at DC, to say nothing of your fellow Americans.
These organizations I refer to are of two major varieties: corporations and interest groups.
And our politics is run almost entirely by them.
Why?
The myth is that our politicians are run by these massive organizations because politicians "lack backbone" or "they're greedy."
Which is only half the truth. The full answer, of course, boils down to money.
No matter how often or how much average Americans pool their resources, they are simply not able to match the ample funds that these organizations can come up with. Private financing of elections, especially with Citizens United and the full scale attacks on any FEC regulations to moderate spending in elections, has precipitated a political system that favors the large few over the small many.
So my question for you:
How do we get away from that?
A series of propositions:
1. I believe the answer has to involve some sort of public financing of political candidates. Make them less beholden to corporations and interest groups by making them primarily reliant on taxpayer money for campaign work.
Interest groups and corporations can still affect elections in this arrangement through soft money. As well they should -- Americans will always organize and try to influence the government, and they have a Constitutional right to.
2. But soft money has no limits. And public financing has no teeth if corporations and interest groups can pour billions into soft money. So capping soft money would have to be a consideration as well. Otherwise, elections will be fought entirely in the indirect, seedy trenches, rather than primarily between the candidates as was intended by the Constitution.
3. Transparency will be necessary if either of the above options don't occur. If we're going to allow Kellogg's to pour $800 million into Obama's campaign or whatever, we should know he's getting the majority of the money from that company -- that's a freakin' bribe for future guarantees, and taxpayers should know what they're getting in office if/when they vote him in.
If both of the above options are accepted, then the outrageous spending in elections is being adequately addressed for my tastes, and I'm happy to relent on this consideration.
4. It is also detrimental to government for election seasons to be as long as they are. In the House of Representatives, you have approximately 8 months to make actual policy, then 14 months to run for reelection. President Obama has already declared that he's running for reelection. Bush declared around this time in his first term. Shorten election seasons is a must.
Long election seasons do three things detrimental to America: (a.) they favor incumbents and extremely rich politicians who can afford to throw a year of their lives away to run for office, (b.) it gives additional power to corporations and interest groups, since longer elections demand more money, and (c.) lowers the window of productivity for government to address any crises or concerns.
Thoughts on the subject are welcome, as always.
I think we can all agree to one major postulate: America's politicians (at the very least, on the federal level) are beholden almost entirely to the interests of huge organizations at the expense of (and usually detriment to) Americans as a whole.
If you disagree with that notion, you are welcome to defend it. But I think you are going to be met with a ton of skepticism from your fellow posters at DC, to say nothing of your fellow Americans.
These organizations I refer to are of two major varieties: corporations and interest groups.
And our politics is run almost entirely by them.
Why?
The myth is that our politicians are run by these massive organizations because politicians "lack backbone" or "they're greedy."
Which is only half the truth. The full answer, of course, boils down to money.
No matter how often or how much average Americans pool their resources, they are simply not able to match the ample funds that these organizations can come up with. Private financing of elections, especially with Citizens United and the full scale attacks on any FEC regulations to moderate spending in elections, has precipitated a political system that favors the large few over the small many.
So my question for you:
How do we get away from that?
A series of propositions:
1. I believe the answer has to involve some sort of public financing of political candidates. Make them less beholden to corporations and interest groups by making them primarily reliant on taxpayer money for campaign work.
Interest groups and corporations can still affect elections in this arrangement through soft money. As well they should -- Americans will always organize and try to influence the government, and they have a Constitutional right to.
2. But soft money has no limits. And public financing has no teeth if corporations and interest groups can pour billions into soft money. So capping soft money would have to be a consideration as well. Otherwise, elections will be fought entirely in the indirect, seedy trenches, rather than primarily between the candidates as was intended by the Constitution.
3. Transparency will be necessary if either of the above options don't occur. If we're going to allow Kellogg's to pour $800 million into Obama's campaign or whatever, we should know he's getting the majority of the money from that company -- that's a freakin' bribe for future guarantees, and taxpayers should know what they're getting in office if/when they vote him in.
If both of the above options are accepted, then the outrageous spending in elections is being adequately addressed for my tastes, and I'm happy to relent on this consideration.
4. It is also detrimental to government for election seasons to be as long as they are. In the House of Representatives, you have approximately 8 months to make actual policy, then 14 months to run for reelection. President Obama has already declared that he's running for reelection. Bush declared around this time in his first term. Shorten election seasons is a must.
Long election seasons do three things detrimental to America: (a.) they favor incumbents and extremely rich politicians who can afford to throw a year of their lives away to run for office, (b.) it gives additional power to corporations and interest groups, since longer elections demand more money, and (c.) lowers the window of productivity for government to address any crises or concerns.
Thoughts on the subject are welcome, as always.