Okay ...... let's talk about money. And campaigns. And maybe some laws ...

[Stinky The Clown]

I'd like to see us kick around some campaign finance ideas.

I'll start:

I'd love to see 100% publically financed campaigns. The funds would come from a special tax, shown and paid for on your federal tax return. Everyone who files a return pays a tax of some set percentage of their **gross** income. See below for an idea about how to figure what that percentage might be. Once a person files as a candidate, they go on the public financing plan. No private or corporate contributions whatsoever. Not one damned dime. Take a penny from a private source - go to jail.

Exploratory committees and such would be outside this system. But any exploratory committees would also expire at some date certain. From that point on, one either declares for an office or one gets out of the race.

Funding is month to month. So long as a candidate polls at some reasonable level, one continues to get funding. During the primaries, the threshold is initially quite low. Once the primaries get going, the threshold gets higher, but still is low so as to allow an unknown a (more than) reasonable chance to build some momentum. As the primary season moves forward, the threshold gets higher, but always is such that it favors unknowns, at least to the point that they get a fair shot.

Once the candidates for each party are known, they each get equal funding for the duration of the campaign season. No party money and no private money is allowed. As stated above: take a penny from a private source and go to jail. This includes in-kind donations like airplanes and hotel nights.

Each candidate for higher office (senate and presidential) gets use of an appropriately sized government owned or chartered aircraft, complete with crew, who operate at the direction of the candidate. The candidate is allowed to repaint the aircraft to display their campaign logo. Candidates for lower office get use of a government owned or chartered bus. This would include congressional races and local office races. As for the airplanes, busses could be repainted.

Unlimited use of volunteers is allowed. An individual person's **time** as a volunteer is outside the 'in kind' donation laws. However, persons who are on someone's payroll and assigned to a campaign by a company would not count; this would be an in kind donation, and therefor, illegal.

Tax calculation:

**The percentage of a person's income would be calculated by dividing the total projected costs of all campaigns for all elective office by $1.00. That would form the basis for the percentage. (I'm not a mathemetician, but I'm guessing the percentage would be something like .001%.) Using this percentage, every tax paying entity (yes, this includes corporations) then pays that tax directly to the feds, who then distribute the money to every candidate, from local dog catcher to presidential. The money is paid on reported gross income, before any deductions and the tax would be unavoidable by any means.

Soft money:

****Soft money/527s/etc - soft money, et al, remains a bit of a sticky issue. It gets to freedom of speech, at least. One thing, however, would be clear. There will be NO allowance for any of it to go directly to any campaign. Further, there will no allowance for coordination with campaigns. Also, any adverts of any sort would be strictly required to state the source of the funding, the major donors, and the organizational details of the group behind it (including the fact that the group, if a subsidiary of another group, must list the ownership organizations, too). For major donors and organizers, as individuals, they must also list their employers or the companies they own if they're not employees (instead being owners). In other words - full disclosure. Some subset would be required right in the adverts, with full details published in a way that they're easily accessible to the public. If a free speech issue comes up, it is the election commission rules that trump free speech in this limited case.

I know all this is very much half baked. That's why I'm putting this out as an idea to kick around and not a proposal.

I'd love to hear the thoughts of others. If all you can contrinute is a thoughtful :sarcasm: 'It won't work' or 'fix the voting machines', please don't bother to post that. I'd rather the thread just sink into oblivion.

[napi21]

1. I say force the networks to give FREE TV time to every candidate,

but, the SAME amount of time, and absolutely NO time could be purchased by the candidate, or for the candidate. That would force each campaign to give serious thought to just how they were going to use their time. If they wanted to risk using their time to bash the other guy, fine, but then his/her positions would get no air time.

They would still be able to buy print, but most of the real seriosu nasty stuff is done on TV where they can always claim they were misquoted!

[SouthernDem2004]

2. Where would you draw the line on who gets time?

[napi21]

6. Draw the line? If a candidate gets on the ballot, they'd be eligible.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I like the idea

Make this a part of it, but in the campaigns, perhaps and not the primaries.

[Governor]

3. I'm wondering..

if there are first ammendment rights issues here.
Some people are going to claim the right to not support any candidate with their money.

On the other hand, the court just ruled that the government is allowed to collect advertising and research fees from livestock producers even though they claimed the right to not participate in advertising campaigns that they might not agree with. So, I guess the road work is done on that issue.

I have some concerns on the taxation as well. How will we determine what the proper level of funding would be for a campaign?

Also, the internet will be the next great tool of campaigning, it's relatively cheap and touches so many. How will we keep the campaigns from becoming a rip of the day online? Or do we need to, since it might be possible that the 'underdog' can get just as much attention online with very little money.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Determining funding levels would be based

on historical data. The Nat'l Elec. Commission has tons of data.

[napi21]

7. I know laws are different in every country, but this is done in the UK now

The big difference there is that TV is primarily owned by the State.

I wouldn't think there should be a first ammendment issue because Co's and individualy would still be able to buy any print material they wanted, so their voice wouldn't be silenced at all, but it would take the tremendous MONEY out of TV and make it more of a contest than a production show!

The biggest objections would come from the Netwroks! They'd be losing a whole lot of money on a deal like this, and they sure wouldn't go down easy.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. The networks ... a couple of thoughts

First, we the people own the airwaves. If we want them for our national elections, we can just take them. But that said, I'd rather candidates buy air time and use it as they see fit .... from the money the government gives them for their campaigns.

The government might want to mandate ad rates to stop price gouging, but that'd be about it.

I'm not strong or hung up on the idea of free air time. I **am** strong on fairness and equal access.

[The Animator]

9. I had a similar thought ages ago, I'll offer some of those thoughts.

1. Broadcast TV and Radio stations are required by law to provide a certain time frame each day for public service announcements, the law does not specify when this time frame should be, so these announcements usually end up being played in the late, late nights when veiwership is low. Campain TV spots should be relegated to a this kind of system. NPR, and PBS of course, can provide much more in depth coverage, but every single candidate running for the office should get equal time.

2. Each candidate should be given equal column legnth in any newspaper that covers the campaign.

3. Personal attacks against another candidate disquallify attacker immediately.

4. Any allegations of wrong doing need to be backed up by evidence.

5. Attacking another candidates record is permitted, however the attack cannot be designed to mislead, and the target of the attack is given the opportunity to respond, and if necissary, place things in the proper context.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. So you're suggesting we go back to 'fair and balanced'

How quaint.

Seriously, those are good ideas.

This is a serious issue. It would be wonderful to see such a system of publically financed campaigns.

Sadly, I suspect no one is listening to us.