Campaign Finance Reform

[harryson]

What are your views on campaign finance reform? Do you feel that it should be allowed to continue?

Or, quoting from another site, "Should limits or regulations be placed on how candidates raise funds, and/or spend them, during political campaigns?"

I'm currently in the process of formulating my own opinions but I would like to see what the "general public" feels towards this subject.

[Scribbler1]

First of all harryson, welcome to Volconvo.
By you assuming we are the "general public" I knew you had to be new around here! :)

Personally, I think campaign reform is an excellent idea whose time is WAY overdue. We just don't have any yet. What passes for "reform" these days is a bad joke, which shifts accountability away from the actual campaigns and allows special interest "527" groups to pretty much do whatever they want.
There is a pretty good argument against regulating political contributions as a freedom of speech/expression issue. You should be able to donate to anyone you want.
I disagree with this thinking in THIS case as it is painfully obvious that any person or entity who donates large sums to a campaign wants something in return which subverts the whole process.

Good enough start?

[Suburbanite]

I think the government should just sponsor all the air-time and money for all candidates equally. To pay for it, we should tax voters, hehe, just kidding.

[saif]

Campain Finance Reform will never wholeheartedly occur.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: saif Campain Finance Reform will never wholeheartedly occur.

Why do you think that? General pessimism or opinion based on observation.

I go with the latter. Any "reform" that has ever been tried usually fails to be enacted or is probably deliberately worded so as not to pass constitutional review.

[saif]

Srry Scrib, I don't really know... it is probably General pessimism but it is my "observance" that the Almighty Dollar corrupts everything.. and I have also found from my past experiences that people, specially those with some "authority" really dislike seperating themselves frommoney they can "easily" get their grimey hands on.

[Scribbler1]

And the basic logic of the situation is that campaign reform is aimed at people who are elected to their jobs, which are the same people who are charged with CREATING the reforms. It is foolish to expect those same people to draft laws which would restrict their OWN actions.

Unless we make some, and invariably unpopular, change to the basic structure of out government our only recourse at this time is to vote every single one of them out of office (all at one time) and elect people who pledge (in writing) to enact campaign finance reform laws, or for that matter ANY law which affects the legislators.

[saif]

Scribe... Take me to your leader.. :) I agree full & wholeheartedly, I suppose we can call the press's and move forward... Have you seen some of the recent posts I have put up reguarding Iraq and the Ukraine?

[Scribbler1]

I don't know about the press. Whether or not you believe they are free, influenced or bought and paid for by any political entity or group you still have to realize if they go TOO far in backing real reform they could lose their major supplier of information. I'm sure the media does NOT want to take that risk. A news outlet is pretty much doomed to die if the government won't talk to them or allow access to anything under its control.

I just read your post regards the Ukraine in the "Fleecing of America" thread. Good stuff.

[saif]

The press, as it probably has always been, (generalization) is corrupt. However, News is what sells, if their was a strong coalition of the america populace that actually stood for its personal beliefs, approached the situation as one of sincereity and with facts, the news would cover them reguardless.. look at the insurgents - a prime example. Although I dislike comparing any activism with insurgency such as that of iraq, they do get airplay.. is that manipulated.. definately, would americans views be manipulated, definately, If protestors, including those who only "activate" online were to congregate such as the Ukranians did, The news would cover it.. but more importantly History would record it.. I am not endorsing any violent behaviors or IED's to be placed anywhere... do not take me out of context, CHange will not occur on the onset of any activism, it takes years to unfold and develop, within that time, views and perceptions change..... i.e. womans rights, gay rights.. such and so forth....

[Suburbanite]

Good point Srcib, i like the logic. I have to agree with it.

[kharmajunkie]

Sorry to budge in on the thread but I'm just trying to see iff it''s accepting new posts. We had a problem with this one earlier.

[harryson]

Quote by: Scribbler1 ....You should be able to donate to anyone you want. I disagree with this thinking in THIS case as it is painfully obvious that any person or entity who donates large sums to a campaign wants something in return which subverts the whole process.

I'm don't think I'm understanding what you're saying right now. Are you suggesting that all donaters have an alternative motive and/or are basically buying what this politician might change? If so, could you please tell me some examples general or specific? Also, if this is true, is it common?

On another note, why is it so hard to pass a reform?... why specifically in this case? Also, how do you "pass a reform"?

Quote by: Scribbler1 Good enough start?

Yes, thanks! :)

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: harryson I'm don't think I'm understanding what you're saying right now. Are you suggesting that all donaters have an alternative motive and/or are basically buying what this politician might change? If so, could you please tell me some examples general or specific? Also, if this is true, is it common?

All you have to do is a little searching on the web for "political campaign contributions" or words to that effect and you will see a number of corporate entities and wealthy people attatched to those entities and you can see a LOT of them contribute to BOTH parties.

What does that tell you?

I don't understand your first sentence but if you mean donators having some nefarious ulterior motive they wish to hide, I would say usually not. An oil company will contribute to a politician who sides with oil companiesand so on. You contribute to your own best interests, thats all. Where it becomes a problem is when that money is used to bombard the electorate with 527 ads, filled with exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies. Like it or not, these ads DO influence a lot of voters and this is where they must be severely regulated. Not the contributions but how the money is used.

And it is hard to pass campaign reforms because these would be restrictions on how politicians spend campaign contributions. The problem is that these laws must be written and enacted by, guess who? POLITICIANS who GET contributions, that's who!