Comments on: Crist Aims to Steer Florida GOP Toward Center

By: kritter

kritter — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:03:30 +0000

I think it is the interpretation, CS. Corporations are given the same rights as individuals with regard to free speech, which translates to campaign contributions.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:55:39 +0000

CS LOL My proposal might help bring down our debt. I agree the unions and corps would continue handing out the dole, but you and I would continue to subsidise the grease.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:35:19 +0000

What law exactly are you talking about, Kim? I think that’s just an interpretation of law, not an actual statute, but I could be wrong.

And I think that it’s not that there are responsibilities that are assigned to individuals but not corps- it’s more that there are limits to the financial resources of an individual while a corp has a much higher limit by virtue of having greater resources at its disposal.

By: kritter

kritter — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:30:03 +0000

What about changing the law that gives corporations the same rights as people? I really don’t understand why they have the same rights but not the same restrictions.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:23:50 +0000

Might have some merit Rudi, but I’m not convinced that the corporations wouldn’t give just as much even if it weren’t deductible. Their interest is in influencing policy, not saving on taxes.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:10:32 +0000

How about changing the tax code to allow deductions to any campign or 527 groups to a $100 limit, $1000 or corps and unions. Anything else would be a real gift, no deduction. The new tax code demands reciepts for $2 cash donations to the Red Cross and Salvation Army. The bell ringers get the shaft, while corps and unions carry on.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:08:44 +0000

Paul,
I think you’re missing my point. I think that as soon as you tell corporations that they can’t fund their favored candidate, they will seek out the nearest 527 which supports him and put their money there. And then those ads give the candidates a means to put out a message that they don’t have to take responsibility for.

I just don’t think you can stop corporate “speech” by banning it. You’ll only drive it underground if you don’t allow it in the official campaign.

Again, I wish I had the answer, but I really think that the ones proposed so far will do more harm than good.

By: Paul Silver

Paul Silver — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:04:38 +0000

C Stanley,
I agree with your concern for unlimited third party campaigning and would like to hear possible remedies.

My favorite would be for the Supreme Court to reconcile the conflict between free speech and the intend of the framers that voters are to have the control to elect their own representatives without the influence of rich outside forces.

My preference would be to allow political contributions only from individuals in the district. Unions and Corporations should be banned from contributions and from concentrating insurmountable marketing power.

By: kritter

kritter — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:49:36 +0000

All ready happened with Webb, Tester and Schuler, but those Brie eating surrender monkey Demonocrat Party hate our troops and love alQaedaâ€¦â€¦

And as we know from PM Howard, they are on their prayer mats 7 times a day facing Mecca, praying that madrassa graduate Barack Hussein Obama delivers them from the Great Satan in ’08.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:38:21 +0000

Ka-ching.

Iâ€™m telling you, this will work for the Democrats~~GOP~~.

All ready happened with Webb, Tester and Schuler, but those Brie eating surrender monkey Demonocrat Party hate our troops and love alQaeda……

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:35:49 +0000

Kim,
The problem is that I think that public financing directly would cause an increase in the non-campaign financed ads from corporations and special interest groups. So no, I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater in terms of abandoning the idea of campaign reform, but I can’t support something that I think will have the opposite of the intended effect. Good goal, wrong solution IMO (but I don’t pretend to know the right solution either!)

By: kritter

kritter — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:24:40 +0000

Yes, CS that is a potential problem, but you don’t want to “throw the baby out with the bath water” do you? It doesn’t mean that the entire idea of public financing for elections is a bad one. I’d support anything that would minimize the effects of special interest money on elections, and make our government more responsive to the governed.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:22:56 +0000

The strategy seems to be working so far. A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Crist with a 69 percent approval rating, with only 6 percent disapproving.

Ka-ching.

I’m telling you, this will work for the GOP.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:54:12 +0000

This is a good sign from Crist. Jebadiah pandered to the Wingnuts, see Terry Schioavo, in a belief that he could coattail on his brothers pandering to the Radical Right that used to be the dominant wing of the Republicans.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:22:52 +0000

Public support for public financing is consistently strong. In a bipartisan survey done last summer, seventy-four percent supported publicly financed elections along with strict spending limits and tough enforcement.

I keep bringing up my concern about public financing but no one has addressed it. Am I the only one who thinks that the lack of accountability of 527s is a huge problem? If groups that have an agenda want to get out a message to hurt an opponent’s campaign, they will be MORE able to do so if we weaken the legitimate use of private funds being given to an official campaign. I think the attack ads will explode if we have a publicly financed election: the funding for attack ads will be driven completely ‘underground’ to 527s, in which case there is plausible deniability for the candidates themselves.

By: Paul Silver

Paul Silver — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:56:29 +0000

Kritter,
I tend to agree with you. The moderate GOP organizations like the Republican Main Street Partnership and It’s my Party Too are ignored and somewhat dormant.

It seems to me that much of the conduct of the GOP Congress is off putting to moderates and independents.

By: kritter

kritter — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:40:13 +0000

Once the national organization sees the success that state and local officials have had with a more pragmatic, centrist approach, they may abandon the ideological hard line that has driven so many moderates and Independents over to the Democratic Party. Elsewhere on this blog is a post detailing the RNC’s choice of Newt Gingrich as a political consultant- which makes me think that as of this moment, they still don’t get what appeals to a majority of these voters and are striving to rally the base in ’08. Imo, if they remain in denial on this issue, they will become a permanent minority party with a narrow appeal to American voters.