There are two major problems with political campaigns these days. The first is outside money. To fix that problem, campaign finance laws should allow only voters registered to vote in the election in which a candidate is running, to contribute to that campaign. No PACs, no Unions, no corporations. Only registered voters. Furthermore, to prevent any hint of “buying a candidate,” all contributions must go through a central clearinghouse and are then disbursed anonymously to the candidates. Joe Shlabotnik can tell the candidate that he donated $1000, but there would be no way to verify that assertion.
The second problem is incumbency. Incumbent congresscritters have a significant advantage over challengers. Term limits are not the answer, because that would restrict voters’ choices, and they may actually have a popular, competent congresscritter.
Now that you have stopped laughing…. Party members are often reluctant to challenge a powerful party member in a primary, and such primary challengers have as difficult a time as general-election challengers do, and perhaps worse. After all, rarely can one argue policy in a primary, and the challenger obviously has less experience than the incumbent. So one must argue incompetence. Well, incompetent compared to what, other politicians? That’s not a big yard-stick.
Then, in the general election, people tend to vote along party lines, even if their current congresscritter is incompetent, they would rather have an incompetent congresscritter with whom they agree than a competent one with whom they do not agree.
The solution is to insert a no-confidence vote. If a candidate loses the no-confidence vote, he cannot run for re-election. The congresscritter’s party will choose another candidate for the general election.
“To fix that problem, campaign finance laws should allow only voters registered to vote in the election in which a candidate is running, to contribute to that campaign”
Great. You just advocated a course of action that, if put into policy before this week, would have given Coakley the resources to outspend Brown. What the hell are you thinking?
Dean, how do we fix the problem of outside influence with pay to play?
I see your point that INSIDE pay to play isn’t always the best option either, and contributions are protected free speech, but I think reform is overdue for discussion.
Most of Coakleys money was from the national Deomcratic Party, big pharma, and national unions. Regular people in Massachusett(e)s did not contribute to her.
Most critical problem I see is we need to immediately fix our debt/spending–not a lot of time here. We are fiddling as Rome burns:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/defusing-debt-bomb
The inept supreme court just gave corporations the same rights as people in campaign contributions.
Instead of curbing corruption, they are pandering to it.
Monk,
Jack’s idea is sound. An honest system would move the unions, big business, advocacy groups like the AMA and ABA out of the money arena in politics. People, not organizations need to be the contributors. It is ridiculous that a Moven.org can contribute to every election. Should Soros with his BILLIONS be allowed to buy influence in EVERY federal district? This would cap it. The people of VA should hav their races decided by Virginians.
correction: corporations and unions.
Violating American’s free speech isn’t the answer – corporations and unions should be able to advertise (even though I don’t have the best view of unions). The Supreme Court just ruled that placing limits on corporate campaign spending is unconstitional anyway. The four things that I think would help the most are: 1) average Americans getting involved in their local elections (at the primary level), 2)enforcement of our voting laws (illegal immigrants should not be able to vote, and I’m not so sure that’s being enforced), 3) enforcement of our campaign laws that make it illegal for foreigners to donate to candidates (President Obama got away with it in 2008), and 4) parents taking back the educational system and demanding that schools teach civics & American history accurately.
A truly educated electorate would not be swayed by slick ads or candidates.
Note, corporatations cannot contribute directly to candidates today, and the Supreme Court did not overrule that prohibition. However, barring corporations from advertising in their own interest during a political campaign would leave them vulnerable to individuals (like Soros) advertising and donating to candidates freely without the corporations having the right to defend their side.
Rachelfriend, you WERE right, but the SCt of the USA decided TODAY that as a matter of free speech, corporations and other entities CAN contribute to campaigns, basically threw out McCain Feingold..
opinion here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Speaking of debt, I got an e-mail from Sen. Warner advertising the fact that he’s joined as a co-sponsor of Rep. Wolf’s SAFE bill.
Huh, he votes for the Stimulus, votes for Health Care Deform, favors Cap and Trade, voted against the Public Debt amendment, votes to increase the national debt limit — but now signs on to SAFE?
Sounds like someone who just can’t help himself – “Stop me before I spend again!”
No worries, Senator, we’ll help you with your problem, once your election cycle rolls around …
If the election is w.r.t. the 10th district of VA, having money come in from Chicago, Biloxi, or Seattle does not serve the people of the 10th district.
Since a corporation or union cannot vote, the speech of the corpporation or union should not require protection.
Just MHO.
“does not serve the people of the 10th district.”
No it does not jacob, but the scope of the decisions made by the 10th district rep is not limited to the 10th district, it affects us all.
While a corporation, union, or other organizations cannot vote, in these cases the group members have assembled to speak as one voice.
Dans, the individuals who own or work in that corporation are welcome to donate and to speak, so long as they are registered to vote in that election.
Yes, how we vote here will affect others, and how they vote will affect us. It goes both ways, so it’s even.
Ah, Rachelfriend. I have missed you. As I stated in another post long ago; we need to teach the Constitution and economics in public schools (most private schools do this already). It must be the WHOLE Constitution without “missing” amendments. And economics must use accurate figures and models-no junk theories. This taking place at no later than junior high and being instilled as a class every year till graduation is what makes America…America. This would be the requirement for elections-voter knowledge. Without it, we are getting scum on both sides AND in the middle. Informed voters trump biased and untruthful campaign ads. An informed voter will always trump blitzkrieg tripe!
Good catch, Rachel. Have I told you lately that I adore you?
jack, so you wish to take away their right to assemble ?
Did you see this :
SCOTUS Knocks Down McCain-Feingold
http://www.nationalreview.com/onthenews/?q=MzAxMTIzOTg0MDZkMTViZDZiNzE5NWVjMTkwYjVjYzg=
Thanks for such a great “welcome back” ACTivist. I’ve been lurking
Actually, I’ve been working. The dang job keeps me hoppin’. Once in a while I get to read dcexaminer at lunch time at work (and post a quick note on an article or Nate Beeler’s cartoons), but most of the time I’m too busy these days to post and follow a thread more than a day or so.
Sue made me read that whole opinion…I’m not happy sue.
I still didn’t see where they removed the restriction on corporations giving money directly to candidates.
I agree with ACTivist. It’s a question of education. I really don’t think more laws will make this situation better.
Jacob, I think the fact that corporations and unions can’t vote actually makes their need to be able to advertise during campaign season even more pressing. While individual employees can vote, they may not be privy to all of the information the corporation or union has. They must have a legal way to get their own point of view out into the marketplace.
I probably won’t even like the ads that will result from the Supreme Court’s decision today (they may all be biased half-truths), but I think they made the right decision. Besides, I LOVED donating to Scott Brown and a couple of other candidates in other states, so I definitely wouldn’t want that ability curtailed!
Sorry, but I cannot disagree more with restricting the right of people to band together to express opinions on a subject. That is what a PAC is. If you want to limit this to Virginia money, ok, I can live with that, but to say that I cannot band together with my neighbors to express my opinion is a violation of the 1st amendment, which if it applies to anything, it applies to political speech.
“campaign finance laws should allow only voters registered to vote in the election in which a candidate is running” Do you even know how much money came from folks who sent money from elsewhere? Brown was way down before the spigot turned on….and you see what happened as a result of that?
And that is the point, Monk. Many that post on this blog openly admit to helping the Brown campaign. BUT it was up to Brown to put the money to good use, which he did. He told the citizens of Mass. who he was, what he believed and what he was going to do. It wasn’t who was giving the money but how educated (or frustrated I will admit) the voters were.
I am wondering if as an unforseeable side affect of Brown’s win, whether there will be a jump in pickup truck sales throughout the auto industry.
“a jump in pickup truck sales”
Hope so, I bought a boatload of Ford stock when it was at $5.
“Sorry, but I cannot disagree more with restricting the right of people to band together to express opinions on a subject. That is what a PAC is.”
My assertion is that groups such as the NRA, of which I have been a member for years, are free to lobby congresscritters, but not give them money. They are free to endorse candidates, and to recommend that their members donate to a candidate’s campaign. Heck, I’m not even saying they cannot buy their own ads.
What I am saying is that they should not be allowed to donate to candidates. That prohibition should be on ALL group entities. Only REGISTERED VOTERS should be allowed to contribute to campaigns, and only for those elections in which they are allowed to vote.
I’m surprised no-one commented on the No-Confidence Vote proposal.
Jack,
The idea that a group can put out their own ads is the equivalent of giving the congresscritter money. If the NRA placed ads supporting a candidate, the candidate knows at least part of the reason they won (especially if they would have had to spend their own money on the same subject ads).
I don’t think it is as simple as what we might like it to be.