Campaign Finance Reform PASSED

[knowltok2]

First off, not all conservatives are as trusting of politicians as RMsharpe seems to be. Don't characterize all of them that way, it just isn't true.

Second, Unions: Some good points, some bad points. Much like everything else in the world, they can't be lumped together and pigeon-holed.

Third: Lets all admit that the old system wasn't perfect, that this new system is an attempt to fix it, and that it may or may not work. Hopefully we can convince out politicians of that last part.

Fourth: Correct me if I am wrong, but I wouldn't think that the Federal government would have juristiction to change campaign finance at the state and local levels. If this system works, we can preasure our local governments to adopt it in due course.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Much of the objections to this particular bill are on constitutional ground. One of two of its major restrictions is very probably going to fall as unconstitutional, and the other is dubious but has about an even chance of surviving. Despite good PR for voting on a popular bill, some few legislaters vote their acording to their constitutional duty, a much lager group of course votes their own interest.

 

[DinoDoc]

Can someone tell me why Democrats are seeking to limit soft money contributions to such a degree as that is the only advantage they have over Republicans in the money race (the Republicans get the most hard money)? Incidentally, the limits on hard money are relaxed under this bill.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Can someone tell me why Democrats are seeking to limit soft money contributions to such a degree as that is the only advantage they have over Republicans in the money race (the Republicans get the most hard money)? Incidentally, the limits on hard money are relaxed under this bill.

Okay, I'm merely speculating here, but...Is it possible that the Republicans get more of both kinds of money than the democrats, but that the soft money is more of a disparity? For instance:

Dems Reps
Soft $2m $20m
Hard $2m $5m

New situation

Soft $0 $0
Hard $2.5 $8


Now don't argue about the numbers or the 0's in soft, I don't know enough about the new law to say what soft becomes. The numbers are made up, but in a situation like this, it does make sense from a Democratic perspective. I'm not saying that this is the perspective, nor the way it is or will be, just that this might possibly explain what you are asking about. Then again, I may be completely off base since I am pulling this out of my ass. If someone knows better, please correct my statements.

 

[damunzy]

Good point knowltok2 but it would look more like:

Before:
       Dems Reps
Soft    4    20
Hard    2     5

After:
       Dems Reps
Soft    0     0
Hard    2     5

Reason for the change is b/c the Dems get more money from soft money than hard. I am not sure of the numbers but my chart is more "acurate" b/c it brings up the fact that Dems get more from soft than hard and the amount of hard money won't change immediately (I don't think).

 

[VoodooAce]

I saw James Carville on some show 'bout a year ago and he had a very interesting idea.....an alternative to banning the $$$. This idea is a bit off the wall. Its easy to reject it out of hand for any number of reasons, but I've come to like the idea. You need to really consider the ripple effect it would have.

Anyway, what if you changed the law so that only either the incumbent or the challenger (i forget which) can recieve campaign donations? AND whatever donations (we'll say the challenger) the challenger recieves, the government MATCHES exactly.

So if Joe Schmoe is running for congress and Big Bastard Oil (..or a teachers union...whatever) wants to donate $50,000 to his campaign, fine. But the government gives his opponent that same amount.

Would Big Bastard Oil still give up the $$? If they know that they are effectively donating equal amounts to both campaigns, it might be a little less attractive to them. But the COULD if they wanted to so there are no 1st Amendment issues.

 

[knowltok2]

Thanks for the correction PaleHorse. I think hard money would go up pretty quickly for the Republicans though, because there are plenty of people out there that are donating $1000 only because it is the limit.

On Carville's plan: Interesting concecpt, but where is the funding coming from, and also, where is the line drawn for multiple candidates? I might run for President and fly all over the country spending taxpayers money having meetings in nightclubs, bars, and tourist attractions. I know that that is an extreme, and that there are rules in place for that kind of thing in general, but you may get my point.

 

[amadeus]

VoodooAce, James Carville is one of the funniest guys I've ever heard...

What do you think Enron did? They donated to both parties as well, and not only that, but wouldn't having a system like that keep the current two-party system and eliminate the chance for any Reformists, Greens, etc. to be elected.

Also, wouldn't this just further encourage illegal campaign contributions from some people who are unwelcome to do so (...foreign campaigns, anyone?...)

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Anyway, what if you changed the law so that only either the incumbent or the challenger (i forget which) can recieve campaign donations? AND whatever donations (we'll say the challenger) the challenger recieves, the government MATCHES exactly.

That would be wonderful if the government matching fund wasn't tax dollars. If Bill Gates makes a big donation the government goes (even more) bankrupt. Wonderful.

And I still don't see anything in Constition that says special interests, unions, and corperations have First Amendment rights.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by PinkyGen

1. Actual individuals will have more, not less influence, on politics, since the amount they can give in hard money is actuall increased.
3. The withdraw of national soft money will weaken both of the parties. The parties decide where the soft money will go, and who it will support. This is one, albeit of many factors, that American political parties are more homogenous than they once more. The question has to be raised if whether it is good thing to weaken the parties.

As to (1), I think this is what we want: the individual having a bigger say in government. We want corporations to have less of a say, which hopefully will happen. After all, we live in a representative democracy: idealy, we the people are suppose to control the government through our electors.

I think (3) is a good thing. Having only 2 parties leaves no options for people whose political beleifs do not adhere to either of these 2 parties. There are a substantial number of people who may be green party, libertarians, etc. but vote for either democrat or republicans because otherwise their vote would be a waste. Perhaps third parties can get more coverage now.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by knowltok2

Fourth: Correct me if I am wrong, but I wouldn't think that the Federal government would have juristiction to change campaign finance at the state and local levels. If this system works, we can preasure our local governments to adopt it in due course.

Right, it is pretty much up to the states to fund their own election refom. Here in Mass we passed the Clean Elections Law, which gathers public funds for state and local elections. I see this as a good thing because a female Green Party Candidate (can't remember her name) is now receiving public funds and actually has a chance to win the race for governor.