NationStates Jolt Archive

There's a lot wrong with current American politics. Even as someone who has often defended the American system on this forum, there are major, major problems with the way it functions. I believe, however, that there is one solution that can fix most, if not all, of these problems - publicly fund every election and ban private donations to campaigns. Here's why:
1. Influence of special interest groups - on both the left and the right, special interest groups have devastated the ability of the government to make effective policy. Business lobbies have prevented even the slightest, most sensible environmental reforms. Minority lobbies have halted the reform of the affirmative action system. There are, of course, more examples, but you get the idea. Why banning private donations to campaigns and private advertising/campaigning would solve this issue is fairly simple.

2. Unfair elections - unequal distribution of finances have often caused the candidate who would worse represent their constituents to win the election - particularly if this candidate is an incumbent with a financial machine behind them. Therefore, the candidate who's better at raising money, not the better candidate, almost invariably wins.

3. Candidate vagueness - citizens have no idea what they're getting because differing level of advertising funding allows the candidate with more money to portray themselves and their opponents in a way that distorts the truth and makes it impossible for citizens to know what they're getting.

4. Two party hold on politics - the two parties are so entrenched that there's no way for a third party to break out. If they try, their efforts are counterproductive because they take votes away from the major party that agrees with them, particularly because the third party has no chance of winning. The two parties are so committed to the alliances they've already made that they don't really change their opinions, making politics disastrous.

Thus, I propose that all candidates for any particular seat will receive the same amount of funding, from the government, and will participate in at least one publicly open debate. All private attempts to help a particular candidate will be banned.

Questions? Opinions? Comments? I-hate-yous?

Glad to see there's at least one other person out there who feels the way I do about this.

I'd love publicly funded elections, but I wouldn't restrict issue-based advertising per se. That's a 1st Amendment issue.

What I would do, however, is require issue-based advertisers to 1) divulge all sources of donations, no matter how small, 2) ban corporate donations to issue advertisers, and 3) ban any connection, however faint, between issue-based advertisers and parties/candidates. I'm all for openness.

Glad to see there's at least one other person out there who feels the way I do about this.
So am I, actually.

I am ambiguous on this issue, but my gut instinct is agreement. Business and State should be separated, and as it is, both Democrats and Republicans just take turns having their well-financed rich men in office. Which is why we have two Bush's in office. Anyone really think its only cuz they're such swell guys? Or maybe their private fortunes mean they can advertise themselves and ingratiate themselves with special interest groups a bit more efficiently than anyone else?

I'm not for punishing success of the wealthy, but it is a sign of corrupted democracy when being wealthy is the only way you can realistically aim for politics.

I'd love publicly funded elections, but I wouldn't restrict issue-based advertising per se. That's a 1st Amendment issue.

What I would do, however, is require issue-based advertisers to 1) divulge all sources of donations, no matter how small, 2) ban corporate donations to issue advertisers, and 3) ban any connection, however faint, between issue-based advertisers and parties/candidates. I'm all for openness.
Well, private funding of election campaigns certainly isn't a speech issue. Being able to advertise on your own is a thornier constitutional issue - you're probably right that it violates the 1st Amendment in at least a small way. That doesn't contradict with what I said, however. We can ban things via a constitutional amendment. Additionally, the Supreme Court has said shouting "fire" in a crowding building isn't protected speech - I'd contend that private advertising functionally does the same thing.

I don't think that we can ban corporations from donating to campaigns and not ban unions or the ACLU from doing the same thing. That would be nakedly partisan, and that's not what this is about.

You're absolutely right, but those who have bought and paid for our government officials won't let them vote for legislation that would enforce your plan.

You're absolutely right, but those who have bought and paid for our government officials won't let them vote for legislation that would enforce your plan.
That's the problem that I've been grappling with. The only way to change this is by a popular movement or a demand by citizens for change. If we can, even for a short while, make it clear that our votes can't be bought, our representatives will listen. I'm not saying this will be easy; it will take an incredible amount of effort and time and may not, in the end, succeed. But it's one of the worthiest causes I've seen in a while.

Also, if this legislation passed, interest groups wouldn't be able to influence anyone if their influence is no longer applicable after the passage of the bill.

I don't think that we can ban corporations from donating to campaigns and not ban unions or the ACLU from doing the same thing. That would be nakedly partisan, and that's not what this is about.
Here's my argument--corporations have certain rights because they're legally persons, but I don't think they should. I think it's a major problem, so the first thing I'd do is strip them of their personhood, and reduce them to what they really are--amoral engines of commerce. As such, they'd have no right to freedom of speech and could be prohibited from advertising in political campaigns.

Unions would be covered in my first post, as would any other advocacy group--full disclosure of their donees as well as absolutely no coordination with any party or candidate.

And the ACLU doesn't donate to campaigns or support them in any way. Individual members may do so, but the organization does not. I should add that none of the restrictions I suggest would limit the ability of individuals to take part in private advocacy or volunteer work for the candidate or party of their choice.

Because our economy and political system are based on the corruption called "campaign contribution," the bribe paid in advance with the understanding that if the candidate wins, he will use his position of authority to repay you with dividends.

Here's my argument--corporations have certain rights because they're legally persons, but I don't think they should. I think it's a major problem, so the first thing I'd do is strip them of their personhood, and reduce them to what they really are--amoral engines of commerce. As such, they'd have no right to freedom of speech and could be prohibited from advertising in political campaigns.
I don't think this solves the problem. If other groups can still contribute to campaigns, then corporations will be able to use such advocacy groups to get around laws banning them from advertising. Further, corporations really don't advertise - they just contribute to campaigns, which isn't a speech issue and thus could be prohibited in the stats quo. Finally, as long as the CEOs personally can contribute to campaigns, they can simply give themselves raises from money that would otherwise have been donated to a political campaign. As long as any private donations are legal, there will be ways around a corporate ban.

Unions would be covered in my first post, as would any other advocacy group--full disclosure of their donees as well as absolutely no coordination with any party or candidate.
That too doesn't deal with the issue - special interest gropus still influence candidates. My whole point was that corporate money isn't the only bad money - any financial incentive for campaigns makes candidates beholden to a particular interest, forcing candidates to vote the way that group wants them too. The Christian Coalition is no better than Human Rights Watch is no better than the NRA is no better than NARAL; while I agree with some of them and not others, they all make politicians beholden to their viewpoints by virtue of the financial resources they leverage. Just because you and I like more left-leaning groups doesn't mean that they should be exceptions.

And the ACLU doesn't donate to campaigns or support them in any way. Individual members may do so, but the organization does not. I should add that none of the restrictions I suggest would limit the ability of individuals to take part in private advocacy or volunteer work for the candidate or party of their choice.
The ACLU was just an example of a well known lobby; I'm not aware of whether or not they donate money. You're probably right that they don't. But you get the gist of what I'm saying. I do agree that individuals should be able to volunteer for campaigns.

Should elections be privately funded?

In a word? No.

Should elections be privately funded?

In a word? No.
Yet again, no one seems to agree with the current election model.

Yet again, no one seems to agree with the current election model.

Well, how many US Presidents have you had who aren't multi-millionaires or very close friends of multi-millionaires?

I'd say very few in the past 100 years, wouldn't you?

Well, how many US Presidents have you had who aren't multi-millionaires or very close friends of multi-millionaires?

I'd say very few in the past 100 years, wouldn't you?
Almost none. It's horrible.

Why should my tax dollars pay for the advertising of parties I disagree with?

Why should my tax dollars pay for the advertising of parties I disagree with.
Because it's the only way you can have a fair and open political system. It's the only way the merits of your views can be accurately represented. If a system is corrupt, I want to fix it, regardless as to whether that corruption benefits my political party or not.

Why should my tax dollars pay for the advertising of parties I disagree with.Because tax dollars are more transparent than corporate dollars funneled through special interest groups and shell corporations. When you buy oreos, shouldn't you have the opportunity to at least know which party the money you bought those oreos with is going to support?

Right now, your spending is probably going to support parties you disagree with, and you don't even have an idea of how much or to which one.

Why should my tax dollars pay for the advertising of parties I disagree with?

Because if they don't, a party you disagree with funded by very very rich men will get control of your tax dollars?

Because tax dollars are more transparent than corporate dollars funneled through special interest groups and shell corporations. When you buy oreos, shouldn't you have the opportunity to at least know which party the money you bought those oreos with is going to support?

Right now, your spending is probably going to support parties you disagree with, and you don't even have an idea of how much or to which one.

Alright, that's fair enough. There's still the problem of determining which parties are elligible, though.

Alright, that's fair enough. There's still the problem of determining which parties are elligible, though.
Yeah. That's a tough one.
Canada has the law that any party receiving 3 (or is it 5?) % of the popular vote, or who manages to get an MP elected, will receive federal funding proporionate to the percentage of the vote they received.

Personally, I think that's a fairly reasonable way to go about it. It means a party has to show that they have a non-negligible amount of public support before they get to cash in.