Comments on: Public Financing of Senate Campaigns

By: lurxst

lurxst — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:33:49 +0000

I live in Arizona where we have had a similar program for a couple of election cycles now. There are some criticisms but overall it does create more opportunities for enthusiastic, idealistic types to have a shot at public office. Despite some of its shortcomings I support this effort, once it is enacted the flaws can be ironed out, much as we have had to do here in the desert. If a corporation wants to get its thousands of shareholders motivated to give an individual contribution, they can use their massive resources to encourage such an effort. Currently the large sums of money that are wielded by a small minority greatly unbalance and corrupt our system. Many corporations are owned by thousands of shareholders that buy in through mutual funds and other plans, they can trust their board to manage the money but I don’t think they also trust them to vote their collective conscience.

By: domajot

domajot — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:59:44 +0000

There are, of course, speculations about what side effects would result.
That’s what they are -speculations.
To address them properly would require counter speculations about how to deal with them, should they actually occur.
I see no reason to assume, contrary to how problems and their evolution are customatily dealt with, that this case is different and possible side effects are the death knell of the search for separating politicians from corrupting money influences.

This is only step one.
We can deal with ensuing steps in due time, when we are speculating less and dealing with real problems more.

Forewarned if forearmed, however, and strategies for what may come should be on on the drawing board. Having read some good ideas, I am far from despair. I’m further still from giving up on a goal before the first step in achieving it is taken.

This is the perspective from whidh I see the issue.
Others will have their own and different perspectives,
To each his own.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:05:27 +0000

Well, my point is that regulating the money that influences politics is a lot like prohibition, or the War on Drugs, or prohibiting prostitution. The donations will still happen but if you make them illegal, then the public will have LESS knowledge about which candidates are ‘on the take’, not more. Instead of assuming that the people who support this really want to run ‘clean’ campaigns, I’m suspicious that some of them may be the worst offenders who want to be able to hide contributions rather than having them come directly to the campaign where they have to be disclosed.

By: George Sorwell

George Sorwell — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:27:45 +0000

Welcome back, Paul!

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:10:55 +0000

Why should we pay for other people’s campaigns, and help institutionalize the two-party duopoly in the process? (We shouldn’t.)

By: domajot

domajot — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:07:32 +0000

To reduce the influence of big money donors would definitely be a boon. For one thing, Congress could spend more time doing its job instead of soliciting contributions. For another, it’s unhealthy for deep pocket interests to be able to buy more accesss, and thus more influence than the average person who is fated to live by the results of that influence.

I have no inclination to cry for business, labor or other interest groups who would lose the ability to buy favors with donations. The whole notion that having more money should provice more influence seems repugnant. Then, too, it’a not like these interests would be banned from Washingotn; they would just need to present their case on its merits, without bribes.

I’m sure there will always be tunnels dug to undermine principles. I don’t see why those can’t be addressed as well, as they crop up,
There will always be bankrobbers. That’s not a good reason to scuttle preventative anti-theft measures and settle for just the ansparancy of taking pictures of bankrobberies in progress.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:38:53 +0000

Every proposal I have ever seen about public financing is speicifically designed to make unions and NGO’s much more powerful while trying to hammer business based contributions.

This proposal is no different.

By: Paul Silver

Paul Silver — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:18:52 +0000

Public Campaign Finance gives candidates the choice to try and make their case to the public without having to pander to special interests. I would give such a candidate extra consideration.
My preference would be to also limit political contributions to a certain amount and only by individuals rather than business entities or Unions.
Special interests will always seek influence – meanwhile we should always try to minimize it.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:42:10 +0000

Exactly, casualobserver. Paul, what makes you think that this type of system would get rid of the Jack Abramoffs rather than driving them underground? People like that will still find ways for their money to buy them influence; in fact disallowing the private contributions that go directly to candidates (for which at least there is accountability) will mean that we will no longer be able to follow the money trail and the contributions will be hidden via 527 contributions. And, of course, the ads sponsored by 527′s give the candidates plausible deniability; they can actually have someone create an attack ad and then pretend they had nothing to do with it.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:30:36 +0000

What about 527 money? Sounds like close the window but leave the garage door open.