Campaign Reform

[daleduke17]

Ok, this started off in the "Caught In A Lie" thread, but it grew

This is why politicians should not be allowed to accept contributions. Any sign of accepting any sort of contribution (monetary or non-monetary*) gets them immediately removed from office and forbade from holding ANY office again. If the politician doesn't have the money to run for office, they shouldn't run for office.


But, since that won't happen, just cap all campaign funds at $100,000 for federal offices, $50,000 for statewide (Governor, Attorney Genral) offices, $25,000 for state district (Legislator) offices, $12,500 for county/parish level and $6,250 for anything lower. The limits would be per election period. Run for President? $100,000 dollars from contributors period. Rest comes from your own pockets. Plus, one would be limited to using, of their own money, 75% of the salary of the office one is running for. Running for President? You can spend $365,250/yr of your own money (aside from campaign funds). ALL receipts must be submitted to an oversight committee to ensure limits are kept.

*this would be to keep corporations from donating their airtime on commercials, billboards, or other similar things. This way the campaign pays for everything. Want to make 50,000 signs at $1.00/sign? Ok, there's $50,000 spent.

Also, some other changes I would make:

- Cannot start a campaign until the beginning of the year the election is held in. That means even announcing your run for office. 2012 election? Start Jan 1, 2012.
- Primaries will be held in five groups of eleven (approximately, depending on how many war theatres are going on or how many territories/states the US has at the time).
- During debates, all parties/candidates will be represented and given equal time.

Make it fair for everyone. JR Ewing worth $2,000,000 or Cletus Spuckler worth $2,000.

[BroomJockey]

If the politician doesn't have the money to run for office, they shouldn't run for office.

While I agree with the notion of campaign reform, my only issue with this bit is that then only the rich would be running for office. I'd rather someone more representative of the populace, rather than the top 5% thereof had a shot.

[Rapscallion]

I'm with Broom on this. The American Dream is supposed to be that anyone of any origin can get to the top.

We've mooted some changes over here from time to time. If a political party is big enough, its campaign could be state funded with strict limits imposed. Of course, then you have politicians voting on what limits they should set themselves for campaign funds. Can't see that going too well.

I can't think of a better system.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Canada's campaigns are publicly funded, and recent reforms have led to even more funding to smaller party candidates.

It's been absolutely wonderful. First of all, we don't give them a whole lot of cash to work with, and they aren't allowed to go over a certain amount if they're adding their own capital. So we aren't bombarded with commercials and advertisements for a full year before every election. It's a short campaign season of about 6-8 weeks.

Second, the public funding has led to smaller parties whose support base is the poor to get their voices heard. They haven't won any seats yet, but they are contributing to the debates, and that's a good thing.

Our system allows regular non-rich people to hold office. We've had farmers, school teachers, and even university students become MPs.

Here's the best part: Corporations and trade unions are prohibited from making contributions to parties.

[protege]

Here's something that I'm surprised nobody has mentioned... That is, do we really think that campaign reform is actually going to pass? I mean, Congress never seems to do anything that's not in their best interests

[Gravekeeper]

I was about to make the same point Boozy just made about our northern lands up here. -.-

The first fundamental flaw in American politics is that the existing systems are so entrenched that most politicians aren't going to make any move to suggest or support anything that would upset the gravy train.

The second is that your major media is completely politicized with every news outlet rooting for its "team" like running the country is some sort of Superbowl. Fuck facts, how can we bend everything to make our team look good?

Its just too high a wall for any sort of logic or reason to enter into the process to drive forward a reform initiative. It's going to have to completely implode first ( Looks like its getting close too >< ) before any meaningful change can happen.

No offensive to my southern neighbours, but American politics is just completely absurd for anyone on the outside looking in. Your politicians say and do things that would get them lynched and thrown out of office by the end of the day in Canada.

God we have politic scandals when one MP calls another a bad name.

[BroomJockey]

God we have politic scandals when one MP calls another a bad name.

Oooo, like the time the guy had to apologize for calling his ex-girlfriend a dog, since she switched parties!

On October 19, 2006, there was a debate on the Conservative Party's clean air plan taking place when MP Mark Holland said that a Liberal colleague, David McGuinty asked MacKay about the impact of pollution on humans and animals by asking, "What about your dog?". This was intended as a jab at MacKay in reference to the time he was photographed on his father's farm with the animal after his relationship with Belinda Stronach had ended. Holland claims this is when MacKay allegedly made reference to Belinda Stronach's empty chair (she was absent that day) and said "You already have her."

Big scandal over that one. Was in all the papers for over a week.

[Slytovhand]

God we have politic scandals when one MP calls another a bad name.

We just had one resign for having an affair with a 26 year old woman (and he's in his 50's).

What's the media been on? Why would a 26 year old girl want to get it on with a guy in his 50's! You see... we have our priorities right down here!


Anyway, this whole 'democracy' system we've been amused by having, is flawed... if the whole system was changed, so that voting was more direct (ie, not along party lines), and everyone was capable of being in the parliament to make decisions, it would all be different... go back to the original version of democracy... rule by lot. (and, with technology getting better, shouldn't really be so problematic that it was previously, given the populations and country sizes). Messy at first, give it a few decades, could be great!

[MadMike]

While I agree with the notion of campaign reform, my only issue with this bit is that then only the rich would be running for office.

Isn't that already what's happening?

[Fashion Lad!]

Isn't that already what's happening?

Pretty much. And the richest one (or at least the one with the richest friends) wins.

[BroomJockey]

Isn't that already what's happening?

Er, yes, that's why I'm for campaign reform, but against the way dd proposed. I'm sorry, I must have been unclear