Oh, who gives a damn about all this?

[GaYellowDawg]

I put up a post challenging DU to come up with an actual plan for public financing of Federal elections. It's the most important issue in politics, because money is what has transformed our country into one that is for the biggest donors, by the biggest donors. I put down what I thought were initial steps towards that, and really thought that the intelligence and inventiveness I've seen here could come up with something workable to present to one of a few national politicians interested in this.

Nothing anyone says or writes about politics will be worth a bucket of warm spit until there are Constitutional amendments barring corporate money and providing for Federal financing of national elections.

What did I get? Zero responses. Zero. I suppose I could have gotten close to a hundred responses with the right Super Bowl post. Perhaps I could have gotten closer to two hundred if I'd said something inflammatory about men's right groups. Or circumcision. Or something else that means fuck-all to the reality that this board's stance on any issue means nothing to anyone that counts as long as $$ count for more than anything else.

I hoped for a constructive response. Or, hell, a response of any kind. Instead, there's nothing but navel-gazing. This place is, in its own way, just as much of a bad political cartoon as Free Republic is.

[SamKnause]

1. I will start.

Free and equal air time to all candidates.

No candidates can purchase additional air time.

No corporations can buy air time to endorse candidates. (This does not include unions.)

All interviews and debates be fact checked in real time.

Take control of the debates away from the Democratic and Republican parties.

[sabrina 1]

3. Those are all good suggestions, but we are in a catch twenty two situation. To enact

strong laws taking private money out of politics, Congress would have to vote for them. And Congress is mostly FUNDED right now by the people who really run this country.

The ONLY way to end this takeover of this country, would be for the PEOPLE to start looking at candidates' funding. Who is receiving the most corporate money, and make that POISON for any candidate.

Then run candidates who do not take money from Corporations and work to get them elected by using THAT as a real plus. We would need to do this everywhere. And it would probably be almost impossible unless and until the people decide that who they vote for has a direct influence on their lives and it is worth the effort to get rid of the Corporate influences on our government because Corporations don't care about them.

It would probably take years but it could be done if there was a collective will to do it.

[SamKnause]

4. I am sadly and fully aware.

These were my suggestions.

I know none of them will ever happen.

Our country is too corrupt to enact any meaningful change.

Our police are corrupt.
Our military brass are corrupt.
Our government is corrupt. (All branches)
Our justice system is corrupt.
Our politicians (the majority) are corrupt.
Our penal system is corrupt.
Our corporations are corrupt.
Wall Street is corrupt.
Private contractors are corrupt. (war profiteers)
The list goes on and on.

Until those who are responsible for the dismal state this country is in are incarcerated, nothing will change.

Looking forwards not backwards does not solve problems and is not justice.

[TexasTowelie]

13. Crap! I remember RWers telling me that socialism would never work because it is too corrupt.

And here you are pointing out our obvious American exceptionalism.

[SamKnause]

29. Sad isn't it ???

We are exceptional; exceptional at fucking things up, inventing problems where none exist, and ignoring the problems that do.

[el_bryanto]

22. I agree with 1 and 2 and 5 whole heartedly

Does three prevent PACs from purchasing air time?

Four is great in theory and impossible in practice, for two reasons. Who gets to appoint the fact checkers? And while it would prevent some of the bonheaded things George W. Bush said in debates, a more skilled debater can avoid saying things that are outright false while still getting a false message across.

I also think we need to work on Gerrymandering issues in the various states; right now the party in power (in each state) gets to draw lines to keep their party in power and that's not right.

Bryant

[SamKnause]

27. Thanks for your reply and input.

I forgot about PACs.

In my world, no PACs.
In my world no gerrymandering.


Fact checkers; two from each party stating where the information came from.

Show documents, quotes, news clips, graphs, charts, etc. backing your facts.

This would be done after every question.

Maybe that would put an end to the outright lies and falsehoods.

This would definitely cause a problem.

History shows trickle down economics has failed.

One party is still pushing this failed idea.

One party does not accept any facts; science, math, history, biology, anthropology the list goes on and on.

Any suggestions on the fact checking ???

I don't have all the answers, but the system in place in corrupt and useless.

[el_bryanto]

28. If you don't allow PACs you can't allow unions either

actually having source material on all claims would be useful, but the example you cited would be problematic. Because right wingers do hold that trickle down did work; and presumably they would call on some conservative economists to make that case. But if you had to provide sources for factual claims, it would help a lot.

Then again, who would avail themselves of that service? Conservatoids presumably wouldn't.

Bryant

[SamKnause]

31. In my world you can allow unions.

Unions represent people in the workforce.

PACs do not.

I can dream.

[el_bryanto]

32. I see what you are saying

My ideal world would have a strong vibrant union movement to protect the rights of workers counterbalanced with healthy well-regulated corporations. Lets face it - business owners and workers have diametrically different goals - workers want as much money as possible and employers want to pay as less money as possible. They have conflicting goals - so a strong union and a strong well-regulated employer come together and hash out a solution that works for both sides.

But since corporations aren't well regulated and have all the power in our society unions don't get to do very much.

Bryant

[SamKnause]

33. Agree

[quakerboy]

37. interesting ideas. they leave me with some questions

So, if 75 different minor parties run someone for senate in my state, they all get equal air time, including the guy representing the "sith party" who literally has 2 supporters, including himself?

Who is to do the "fact checking" of interviews and debates? That makes a huge difference.

Who are we then giving that control of debates too? Again, that makes a huge difference.

[REP]

2. Cognitive dissonance

You say:

...the intelligence and inventiveness I've seen here could come up with something workable to present to one of a few national politicians interested in this.

And then say this:

Instead, there's nothing but navel-gazing. This place is, in its own way, just as much of a bad political cartoon as Free Republic is.

Which is it? A place of intelligence and inventiveness or a cesspool of navel-gazing akin to FR?

[RobertEarl]

5. Best navel gazers on the web

We have here the most intelligent and inventive navel gazers the world has ever seen. And I like belly-buttons, so there!

[Ron Green]

6. As someone who was on the ballot with Obama in 2012,

I've just about decided that the necessary transformation will happen outside and beyond electoral politics.

[LuvNewcastle]

7. That's where I'm at, too.

[truedelphi]

15. Yes that is very much the case.

or a long long time, I thought that the corruption was at the top, and that most people were not at fault. But increasingly I notice how little it takes for corrupting influences to take over.

Most notably, my observations came about because recently the county where I live had some policy changes proposed. And so there were major public hearings on the County Supervisors decisions to put together an ordinance that would restrict people's right to grow marijuana. It came out early on, that if a person had a one acre lot, then they would be able to grow marijuana outdoors, but less than that one acre, and you would have to grow indoors. (Which is more expensive, and also wasteful of resources.)

So the hearings happened, and what was so discouraging was related to the attendance. As soon as people realized the benefit to their pocket books, if they owned a one acre lot, and then their ability to grow would remain secure, and after all who cares if less fortunate people wouldn't have the same advantage? I can make my profits, so what if someone else can't?

So by far and large, the people who came out to protest the restrictions were all very disadvantaged people. Had the county's residents been united on this, the ordinance wouldn't have happened, but it happened, and it was about one thing: G R E E D

[PotatoChip]

19. (Kind of off topic, but)- That is just wrong!

If any restrictions are to be placed regarding property size, in my opinion those restrictions ought to be just the opposite of what your county has done. In other words, create an environment where small enterprises have the best possible shot at flourishing, while simultaneously making it as difficult as possible for Big-Ag to monopolize the market. -Thinking long term here-

I realize that a 1 acre plot does not equal 'Big-Ag'. Not even close. But if these endeavors eventually turn out to be as lucrative as I'm envisioning, I can easily picture huge buy-outs; even if the purpose is just to stop some popular competing forces, no matter how small.

Is there some way of going around this ordinance? And if not, have you thought about banding w/like-minded people, pooling your resources in a cooperative type endeavor? You could start small by buying 1 or 2 acre(s) for example. (?)...You might even be able to go around certain county and state codes as well, and even perhaps receive public grants and/or loans if you can prove that it is for the overall public good (ie, community revitalization, local economic stimulus, ect.)

-Just sort of thinking out loud here-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

[truedelphi]

39. Thank you for the input.

People have indeed organized and put together a referendum on the measure.

Once those signatures for the referendum came about, and the referendum was realized as being eligible to be on the ballot, then the ordinance has been stopped cold in its tracks.

I don't find too many people with your level of awareness. I see people willing to accept restrictions, again, because "as long as those restrictions don't apply me, why should I mind?" style of thinking.

Rolling Stone has had several long articles on the pot victories in Washington and Colorado. But always included in the article is the notion that the "Bigger Interests" should be encouraged, because only those interests are able to deal with the vast bureaucratic and legal maneuvering that no doubt will be in place. As if governmental and bureaucratic interests should even be part of the equation.

Very discouraging.

Prop 215 here in California was quite elegant in what it stated. It very simply stated that people who need medicinal marijuana and have their doctor's approval and prescription should be able to grow or else procure the substance through a dispensary. the folks who put the original language together were highly intelligent and included Lynnette Shaw and Dennis Peron. If they had wanted an individual's right to grow to have the oversight of County Supervisors, city council members, local sheriffs etc they would have written that into the Proposition.

[PotatoChip]

20. Oh my. So this is a pre-emptive type thing...

Either that, or you are allowed to grow marijuana for personal medical use as is allowed here in my state as long as one has a prescription. (I'm not familiar w/California medical MJ law)... The other post reflects the fact that I assumed you were from one of the 2 recreational marijuana states until I looked at your profile.

Hmmm. Interesting that there would be such concern unless $ is involved.

But as you've already pointed out- Of course there is...

[BainsBane]

8. Can you link to that thread?

I didn't see it but am very interested. I agree it is the single biggest impediment to systemic change in this country.

[byronius]

9. Didn't see your post. Busy. I fully agree, however.

Who here does not?

[DeSwiss]

10. RESPONSE OF ANY KIND: ''You don't put new wine into old skins.''

Old school here. Seen it. Heard it. Discussed it. Check the archives. My guess is that many don't believe anything will work at this point. And they'd be mostly right.

Developing and enacting new election financing laws is analogous to performing brain surgery on a zombie in an attempt to restore it back to its fictional previous life of perfection. Or there abouts.

- To evolve, at some point one has to leave the cocoon.....

[merrily]

12. Thanks.

I was drafting while you were posting, or I would not have bothered posting. You said it better and more briefly than I possibly could. I just don't have that knack. Wish I did. It would save me lots of time and carpal tunnel symptoms.

We are saying very similar things and, as a practical matter, coming to the same bottom line.

Or, in the immortal words of Mortimer Snerd, "Duh, it ain't easy."

[merrily]

11. Sometimes, people get tired of posting the same thing over and over, so they don't.

As you said, this is going to require a Constitutional amendment. Constitutional mendments are not typically as detailed as your OP suggests. That is reserved for actual legislation.

Unless and until a Constitutional amendment is passed, getting into the weeds and wording of legislation is pretty much a waste of time. (I was going to say masturbatory.)


No even mildly controversial Constitutional amendment has been ratified since the Eisenhower administration. Equal rights for women still hasn't gotten enough votes for ratification. I doubt this one would even make out of Congress. But, the logical first step is to see what can be done about beating the odds suggested by that historical reality, not asking for details of legislation.


If and when an amendment passes, a serious attempt to come up with detailed legislation is not going to be easy because there long and often contradictory lines of Supreme Court cases about freedom of association and campaign contributions. If you are interested, read the entire Citizens United opinion, which discusses the cases and the contradictions they present, then read the cases themselves--because all that is the needle that campaign finance legislation will have to thread if it is going to withstand a future constitutional challenge. Based on what the Citizens' United opinion says about them, I imagine that Constitutional law professors would have a hard time writing the legislation.

[truedelphi]

16. Very well stated. Then add in the problem that

At some point the whole kit and kaboodle could be co opted out from under the intentions of the activists, so that the language of the Amendment keeps in enough of the parts of the corrupt system we have now, and considering all this, it all does get so discouraging.

[JI7]

14. the supreme court

because it often comes down to whether the supreme court will strike down whatever we do pass .

so you need to get a change up there .

[Glitterati]

17. The answer is right here. All we have to do it get behind it

Citizen-Funded Elections
Support Fair Elections Now

There is a fundamental flaw with elections in this country: big money.

Politicians need big bucks to run their campaigns and they get most of it from wealthy donors and special interests. Those contributors expect paybacks in the form of special access, favorable legislation, earmarks, government contracts, or plum government jobs. Because of this corrupting influence of money, many Americans have lost faith in politics and feel neglected by our democracy.

Ordinary citizens who want to serve in government don't have access to money and are locked out of the system, unable to afford running for office.

There is a solution: The Fair Elections Now Act would give candidates $4 for every $1 they receive in small contributions so that ordinary people, not just special interests, can fund a candidate. This would make candidates focus on their voters and the issues instead of holding $1,000-a-plate dinners with lobbyists.

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=1021

[Scuba]

18. I like the idea of giving each registered voter a voucher for, say, $50. He/she could then ...

... use it any way he/she like - donate all to one candidate, split it up, pool it with others (think unions) or toss it in the garbage, but that $50 is the sum total of all the campaign financing that voter can do. No more PACS, no more private donations beyond that $50.

For those who would argue that this somehow limits the free speech of someone with money to spend, I would argue that the $50 means they have exactly the same amount of free speech as every other voter.



Kudos to Lawrence Lessig for this concept.

[TBF]

21. Economics -

You are right to focus on economics. Personally I have had it with capitalism and would like to try something else. But in terms of "fixing" it - there are things that could be done. From roughly the late 1930s - 80s we had a period in US history where folks did figure out how to tax, regulate, and have society in which people could move up in income brackets. There are a lot of things that need to happen to reverse the activity of the past 30 years though. Minimum wage could be doubled via executive order to start with. Capital gains tax needs to be returned to the same rate as regular earned income. Public financing of elections would be exemplary. Repeal NAFTA and do not pass TPP.

Sometimes I think people go to the other topics you mentioned because they are simply overwhelmed by the amount of work that needs to be done (and there are the trolls in GD who will try to keep you talking about anything but economic inequality). Thanks for trying at least.

[Orangepeel]

23. I didn't see your post. But there is already an actual bill to support

http://sarbanes.house.gov/free_details.asp?id=123

The Grassroots Democracy Act (H.R. 268)

It’s time to build a new system that empowers the voice of the everyday American.
The Grassroots Democracy Act is a three-pronged package of reforms designed to combat the influence of concentrated money in politics, raise civic engagement, and to amplify the voice of everyday Americans in our nation’s electoral process.

EMPOWER EVERYDAY AMERICANS WITH DEMOCRACY DOLLARS

Provide Americans with a $50 refundable tax credit to contribute to their preferred candidates for Congressional office. With average Americans newly empowered to participate in campaign giving, candidates will have more incentive to re-engage with everyday voters rather than spending disproportionate amounts of time fundraising from moneyed interests.

AMPLIFY THE IMPACT OF GRASSROOTS DONATIONS

Multiply the impact of grassroots donations ($100 or less). Candidates who forego traditional PAC money and focus on earning broad-based support from grassroots donors in their district or state will receive public matching funds for grassroots donations. The match will be 5-to-1 where the candidate elects to maintain some degree of high dollar support and 10-to-1 where he or she commits to accepting only donations of $100 or less. The 5-to-1 option – which serves as a “bridge” from high donor dependency to grassroots empowerment – will phase out after six election cycles.

FIGHT BACK AGAINST UNLIMITED OUTSIDE SPENDING

Establish a People’s Fund to prevent super PACs and other big money organizations from drowning out the voice of the people. In elections where outside spending significantly outpaces national norms, grassroots supported candidates will have access to the People’s Fund to make sure their voice – and the voice of their grassroots supporters – can still be heard. Once total non-candidate spending reaches a certain decibel level, grassroots supported candidates will have the opportunity to apply for an additional 1:1 match on their grassroots base, providing immediate, supplemental support. Carefully crafted to preserve the constitutional guarantee of free speech, the People’s Fund will ensure the marketplace of ideas remains competitive.

Organizations Supporting the Grassroots Democracy Act: Americans for Campaign Reform, Citizen Action of New York, Communication Workers of America, Common Cause, Credo Action, Daily Kos, Demand Progress, Democracy for America, Demos, Greenpeace, MoveOn.org, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Professor Lawrence Lessig, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Public Campaign, Public Citizen, Rebuild the Dream, Rootstrikers, Sierra Club, US PIRG, Wolf PAC, and Working Families Party.

[Triana]

24. I didn't see your post.

But I'm familiar with the disappointment of posting something asking for actual ACTION on something - anything - and getting either no response or a bunch of flip comments and/or whiney "oh, that won't help anything" or hostility and criticism. But no action. No suggestions. No potential ideas or alternative solutions offered.

People commonly love to complain. But it's much less common that they want to do actual work to change anything they complain about.

The comraderie and moral support on DU for progressive ideas and against GOP idiocy is fabulous. I'd be nuts without it for the past 13 years.

But try to get anyone to actually DO anything or offer potential solutions or ideas to improve the progressive political landscape -- good luck with that. Any post asking for that will likely be met with anything ranging from complete apathy (drop like a stone, ignored), to absolute derision, criticism and abject hostility. ACTION and ideas to move us forward or to deal with the countless issues an obstacles progressives face is a rare thing.

The issues progressives face are important enough to complain about. But not important enough to do much of anything about, apparently.

Sorry I missed your post. DU is a big place - and many great and potentially constructive posts are probably missed, and that's another problem which is both a good and bad thing and really no one's fault. Not seeing a post is one thing. Apathy though, is quite frustrating.

[Waiting For Everyman]

25. Require that networks offer airtime in the public interest.

It's the public's airwaves, why should anybody have to pay for the public's elections? The networks have been getting an undeserved windfall all these years, it's time to tell them that the party's over. Election airtime is simply a requirement of doing business.

Second, only citizens who are able to vote should be able to donate to campaigns (meaning, no corporations).

[Orsino]

26. An even better idea would be...

...a plan to get us a little bit closer to public financing, and which demonstrates the desirability thereof.

You have to make people care, and the hard work of publicizing the abuses of private money in elections is mot a job for which there is a shortcut. Yeah, eventually we'll need to map out public financing in detail, but America is a moving target, and you need a movement to fix it.

If we could get some significant limit in place on private and corporate contributions, I would feel a sense of accomplishment. If private and corporate donors who transgress could be prosecuted, we'd be closer.

Plans are all well and good, but we don't need to know yet exactly how election finances must be paid for. A caring majority is going to be your first step, I believe.

[WillyT]

30. Go Here:

The Plan: http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan

Home Page: http://www.wolf-pac.com/

[PotatoChip]

34. Maine has successfully used statewide Publicly Funded elections for well over a decade.

Known in this state by the name of 'Clean Elections'.

It has worked quite well for years, and we are a much better state for having it.

However, a very large blow was struck by the recent SCOTUS 'Citizens United' decision that removed our matching-funds portion of the law. Therefore, while publicly financed candidates continue to win against traditionally funded opponents, it has become much more difficult in highly competitive gubernatorial and legislative races. Especially now that the floodgate of outside money influences have been opened.

Maine's tested and tried model could conceivably be adapted on the Federal level if there is enough public will to make it happen. I truly hope that is the case; that people will finally rise up and demand this or something akin to it.

But first, we need to somehow overturn the portion of the Citizens United decision that applies to the matching-funds portion of the law. Or better yet, find a way to ditch the whole stinking 'Citizens United' BS decision altogether!

History of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections

In 1995 a group of organizations and concerned citizens came together with a goal in mind - break the ties between wealthy special interests and our elected leaders. The Maine Citizen Leadership Fund brought together key players such as the Maine AFL-CIO, AARP, Maine Council of Senior Citizens, Maine People’s Alliance, Maine Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Peace Action Maine and the Dirigo Alliance into a unified effort to pass the first in the nation program for public financing of elections - The Maine Clean Election Act. Hundreds of volunteers from the groups worked to gather signatures to put the MCEA on the ballot. In 1996 Maine voters passed the MCEA by a significant margin.

The Maine Clean Election Act had its first run in 2000, with candidates for State Senate and House both using the new program for the first time. The results were that half the Senate and 30% of the House members were elected without any special interest money. In 2002, those numbers rose to 77% of the Senate and 55% of the House. Clearly, Clean Elections was working. Today, we are proud to say that more than 80% of the legislature was elected using Clean Elections!
https://www.mainecleanelections.org/history

[Bennyboy]

35. Tell me about it.....

A stupid post about the men women issue gets hundreds of responses and this one, or the many that have ideas die on the vine. Net Neutrality for example. ONE post on that thread yesterday. Try posting aobut Corporate personhood sometime.

But Chris Christie is big news, with hundreds of posts per day when no matter what, Christie of No Christie the system is going to still be fucked.

[Rowdyboy]

36. If you really want a thread to sink, post an update on a close and imporant senate or governors race

No one gives a flying fuck. Now post a screed either praising or trashing President Obama. You'll get a 600+ post marathon of indignant throwdowns and three or four posters will be banned.

DU is truly a piece of work

[1000words]

38. Folks would rather wallow in melodrama

and "debate" the latest celebrity outrage.

Mostly, I come here for the comedy.