|
Post by davidindc on Jun 10, 2012 19:12:54 GMT -5
Mine is the minority view. But I feel strongly about this, so I'll cut-and-paste an essay I've previously posted on the topic elsewhere. Please give it whatever consideration it's due and then please post alternative approaches. Unless I convince you all right here and now. The government must be in the business of leveling the playing field between the haves and the have-nots. So long as government is in that business, those with wealth will work and spend to influence the system. The solution is not regulation of political contributions or political campaign spending. If you want to spend your time and energy nailing this Jello to that wall, be my guest. The better solution is a simple, three-rule system, first proposed, so far as I'm aware, by George F. Will (proving that even a blind nut finds a squirrel, once in a while.) ¡No foreign money. ¡No cash. ¡Immediate, full, transparent disclosure of all campaign contributions and spending, in as close to real-time as modern technology allows. Then let the voters decide who's being bought and sold, who's doing the buying and selling, and who should be voted in or out.
|
|
john
New Member
Texas-12
Posts: 39
|
Post by john on Jun 15, 2012 14:01:32 GMT -5
Since getting the money out of politics should be one of our highest concerns, let me ask this question about:
"Campaign Finance Reform
New legislation to enact a 100% public campaign finance system requiring an immediate ban on all direct and indirect private contributions of money, or anything of value, from all sources including individuals, to all politicians or political parties to be replaced by a "blind" public trust whereby taxpayers will fund all federal election campaigns. Private donors may also contribute to the blind trust for a tax deduction but those private contributions may not be earmarked for a specific candidate or political party.?"
Does this paragraph mean that a person running for office MUST use this system?
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 16, 2012 10:56:02 GMT -5
As it's written - no... but language requiring that all candidates for public office MUST use that system, and cannot supplement the funding they get from that system with ANY private donations OR any of their own money (meaning Maureen Mower, the unemployed housewife can compete against John Kerry and his wife's millions on a level playing field) WOULD add that requirement.
This isn't a question of free speech, because all candidates for public office have to obey certain laws and rules now - and this proposed law does not prohibit any individual or corporation from donating to a political campaign. It just prevents that donation from influencing the election (by allowing one candidate to have an unfair financial advantage over another), or from holding any sway over the winner (since all donations to the central fund would be private - and distributed evenly to all candidates, so no one candidate would owe any favors to the donors).
|
|