in a perfect world, politicians wouldn't get to say a word and anyone on their payroll wouldn't get to say a word about them. their past would be ALL they have to stand on. maybe elections wouldn't be popularity contests but you still end up with popular vote not being why someone is elected.
Rather than try and limit how much people can give, we should be seeking legislation regulating how much candidates can spend. That way not only are special interests limited, but super rich politicians don't hold such a huge advantage in running for office. As others have said though, trying to get politicians to regulate their own funding is silly. It's the same reason Americans should be cautious of anyone seeking to extend the governments power . . . once granted powers are never given up.
As a hardcore libertarian conservative I still kind of find myself supporting this idea. I don't think just overturning CU would be the only step to take, though.
not going to lie, this makes me less embarrassed for my home state. though Bachmann is still in office and she's still nuckinfutz so there's that.....
Good for Franken. CU needs to have its head chopped off, body dismembered, burned, and then the ashes blown up with a nuke. That decision was one that absolutely threatened democracy in America. I have never been so proud of this country than I was to see that Karl Rove got a 1% return on the near half billion dollars he pumped into the election around the country (and that doesn't even include Crossroads GPS his 501C4 "charity" he doesn't have to reveal shit about).
If you get a chance, go watch Monday's Colbert Report on Hulu. Colbert has done more than anyone on television to reveal the fuckery of Citizen's United (how he didn't win an Emmy for it is baffling. He deserves a damn Nobel Prize frankly). He had his lawyer Trevor Potter on explaining how to make the rest of the money in his Super Pac magically disappear. He just has to start another 501C4 "charity" then he takes the money from his Super Pac, transfers it through his current 501C4, with a letter telling them what to do with it (in this case send it to the other 501c4), and poof all the money disappears into the other charity and not a single dime ever has to be reported to the IRS because that money magically doesn't exist anymore in their eyes. So essentially you can filter millions and millions of dollars through tax free exchanges and then pay yourself with that 501c4 money. The entire system Citizen's United established is so corrupt, so completely shadowy, so inherently wrong in a democratic republic that it is just a disgrace to the Constitution and for the America everyone constantly claims the founder's envisioned.
---------- Post added 2012-11-15 at 08:26 PM ----------
---------- Post added 2012-11-15 at 08:31 PM ----------
YEs, what we need is more government regulation on how people can spend their money.
Oh yeah, I forgot that corporations are not composed of people but rather are self-spawned entities devoid of any humanity.
That's a problem with a parliamentary system with too many parties. Officially parties don't actually have the power in government here. Won't be an issue.I'm equally leery of a system that supports a multitude of political parties. India has such a system and they get so little done in Parliament they're called a "functional anarchy".
---------- Post added 2012-11-16 at 02:05 AM ----------
It would have been easier to answer this question by saying something like "Maybe the public finance system would only support 5 candidates" or something.That's a problem with a parliamentary system with too many parties. Officially parties don't actually have the power in government here. Won't be an issue.
Then if you have 3 or more candidates operating on an equal level, chances are good you'd have to change electoral victories to a condition of plurality rather than majority. I'm not sure that's a good idea at all.
I'd settle with ~5-10%. Enough that any serious candidate can get in but enough to weed out nutbags. Money can be tied to a cost index.I think it's important to at least have a general idea of where you'd draw the line (How many candidates? How many parties? How much money gets set aside and how it's divvied up etc) when you take away a self-determining system such as "Who could get the most people to donate to his campaign?"