Campaign Finance Reform

[Kyle 207]

I did not want to derail the interesting thread on issues, but campaign finance reform come up often. I am curious when one says he or she favors "campaign finance reform," what specifically does one mean? FWIW - there is real tension in my head around the issue between the frequent feeling that politicians are bought by special interest groups and the reality that how else do citizens participate actively in democracy outside of special interest groups? I am just curious how folks think about "campaign finance reform."

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Get rid of the national parties propping up local candidates beyond a low threshold

get rid of contributions above a threshold, PACS as well

Cap the amount of dollars you can spend on an election cycle

Corporations are not people

[Biff Tannen 45,492]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Get rid of the national parties propping up local candidates beyond a low threshold

get rid of contributions above a threshold, PACS as well

Cap the amount of dollars you can spend on an election cycle

Corporations are not people

I think...yeah...pretty much this. 

[thrillhammer 683]

Great doc on pbs a couple of weeks ago called Dark Money.  Fantastic.  There is no doubt our system is more corrupt than most people think and that essentially it is a system of bribery.  

[77horn 216]

I've been evolving over the years, but right now I think that if you can't vote in the election, you can't spend money influencing it.   No corporations, unions Congressional coordinating committees, no one from California donating to the Texas congressional district 18 race.  If you are a pac supporting a candidate in district 18, all the money you spend must come from district 18 eligible voters.

I know, it's like herding cats, where there is great power to be used, some bastard will find a way to influence it.

 

 

[Pig Bellmont 8,691]

It starts with overturning Buckley v Valeo and determining that in fact spending $$ is not protected under free speech. Congress has been neutered by SCOTUS and any significant campaign finance reform is DOA, especially given the make up of this Court. The prevailing thought is that limitless corporate $ in politics favors republicans, so that’s how you get Citizens United. 

You want to organize a rally or write an OpEd, fine. Limiting money, limits corruption and influence. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive or lying. 

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

It starts with overturning Buckley v Valeo and determining that in fact spending $$ is not protected under free speech. Congress has been neutered by SCOTUS and any significant campaign finance reform is DOA, especially given the make up of this Court. The prevailing thought is that limitless corporate $ in politics favors republicans, so that’s how you get Citizens United. 

You want to organize a rally or write an OpEd, fine. Limiting money, limits corruption and influence. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive or lying. 

That just isn't going to happen, I don't believe, without a Constitutional Amendment.

The answer is going to be disclosure and discussion.  Every piece of campaign material should be covered with the donations and donors to every candidate.  Every debate or perhaps one or more debates should be devoted entirely to "who's paying your bills?"

[David Dennison 18,655]

On 10/16/2018 at 4:38 PM, Onboard 2.0 said:

Get rid of the national parties propping up local candidates beyond a low threshold

get rid of contributions above a threshold, PACS as well

Cap the amount of dollars you can spend on an election cycle

Corporations are not people

This is something the left can lay at the feet of conservatives 100%.

I have no idea why it's not more of an issue because corporate personhood is one of the most important doctrines in Constitutional Law.

[Buzzrock 14,871]

Shrinking the size of government would make for a smaller attack surface for corruption. But that’s not going to happen.

[Js1 85,104]

21 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That just isn't going to happen, I don't believe, without a Constitutional Amendment.

The answer is going to be disclosure and discussion.  Every piece of campaign material should be covered with the donations and donors to every candidate.  Every debate or perhaps one or more debates should be devoted entirely to "who's paying your bills?"

We should make them wear jumpsuits like NASCAR drivers at debates with corporate logos for who is funding them.

[High Plains Drifter 10,976]

Public funding of campaigns.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

8 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

Shrinking the size of government 

Sounds nice but means jack shit.  

How are you going to shrink the size of government?

Who will be getting the pink slips? 

[Biff Tannen 45,492]

8 hours ago, Js1 said:

We should make them wear jumpsuits like NASCAR drivers at debates with corporate logos for who is funding them.

[Mole 4,320]

8 hours ago, Js1 said:

We should make them wear jumpsuits like NASCAR drivers at debates with corporate logos for who is funding them.

Came here to post this, but not as a joke. Seriously, why not? Make it part of the congressional uniform and when they're serving in that capacity — campaigning, town halls, in office, on the floor — they should wear their uniform.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,411]

The story of Cindy Yang of Robert Kraft Asian Spa and Trump pics fame,  illustrates a huge flaw in the campaign contribution system. You can only contribute about $5k as an individual but many private events require much higher contributions.  Cindy Yang paid $54k for 2 tickets to a trump dinner and got a private photo with trump. 

How did she and others do that? They recruit others to also make political contributions. Low level employees of Yang all legally gave $5400 to trump.  Amazing that receptionists or massage therapists can all afford to donate that much. When asked if they received an illegal reimbursement from Yang, they all refuse to answer. Doesn’t take much imagination to understand what occurred here.

I’m sure the same illegal donations occur on the Dems side as well.  Yang doesn’t appear to own the sex/massage spas any longer but it seems like she will be facing some jail time soon. Maybe trump will pardon her.

[elfenix 34,171]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The story of Cindy Yang of Robert Kraft Asian Spa and Trump pics fame,  illustrates a huge flaw in the campaign contribution system. You can only contribute about $5k as an individual but many private events require much higher contributions.  Cindy Yang paid $54k for 2 tickets to a trump dinner and got a private photo with trump. 

How did she and others do that? They recruit others to also make political contributions. Low level employees of Yang all legally gave $5400 to trump.  Amazing that receptionists or massage therapists can all afford to donate that much. When asked if they received an illegal reimbursement from Yang, they all refuse to answer. Doesn’t take much imagination to understand what occurred here.

I’m sure the same illegal donations occur on the Dems side as well.  Yang doesn’t appear to own the sex/massage spas any longer but it seems like she will be facing some jail time soon. Maybe trump will pardon her.

and then she could write a book about the man (i.e. democrats) holding down a successful smallbusinessimmigrantwoman and go on a tour with dinesh d'souza blowing smoke up old wyipipo's asses

[wildcat09 29,237]

On 10/19/2018 at 6:58 AM, Buzzrock said:

Shrinking the size of government would make for a smaller attack surface for corruption. But that’s not going to happen.

Corrupting government officials wouldn't even be necessary for the wealthy to wield their power against the rest of us then, which wouldn't exactly be better.

[troph 24,562]

city of austin allows individuals to give $350 to a candidate for city counsel and $700 for a married couple (basically $350 x2).  No businesses, none.  In-kind counts too.

seems like an awesome way to reform national politics.  individuals only.  family max. keep it low so even middle class people can donate on par with the richest.  ban political advertisements of any kind other than through the campaign itself during blackout windows - when folks are actively campaigning for office.

[Biff Tannen 45,492]

1 hour ago, troph said:

city of austin allows individuals to give $350 to a candidate for city counsel and $700 for a married couple (basically $350 x2).  No businesses, none.  In-kind counts too.

seems like an awesome way to reform national politics.  individuals only.  family max. keep it low so even middle class people can donate on par with the richest.  ban political advertisements of any kind other than through the campaign itself during blackout windows - when folks are actively campaigning for office.

Uh, is that new?  If not, how did Ann Kitchen take 4 grand or whatever from the taxi lobby?

[Asithappens 974]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Uh, is that new?  If not, how did Ann Kitchen take 4 grand or whatever from the taxi lobby?

The funds were from individuals, iirc. 

And by individuals, I mean business lobbies.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Asithappens

[elfenix 34,171]

bundling says, 'hi'