Ok, you all think it's just campaign finance reform. Sounds great. Now what are your solution to campaign finance reform, and how likely do you think your solution is likely to happen in current political climate?
Ok, you all think it's just campaign finance reform. Sounds great. Now what are your solution to campaign finance reform, and how likely do you think your solution is likely to happen in current political climate?
Last edited by beanman12345; 2021-01-29 at 07:03 PM.
I think the Mayor/Governor set up would be the toughest item to coordinate. However, I would also be dollars to donuts that they already have a few solid options ready to go.
The biggest issue is the faux constitutional one. D.C. would have to be divided so the Federal Seat of Government remains separate from the remaining people in D.C. And THAT is going to be a tough nut to crack.
First of all, wow - I did not know that at all. Second, not so much. 29% of D.C. is federal, while 28% of the United States is federal land.
However, I still consider your position correct - not because of the numbers, but because I thought all of the District of Columbia was federal land. Which, when I bother to stop and think about it, doesn't make sense. So thank you for that info.
Still, carving it up might be difficult - however, as always, I'm sure they have a plan in place. Or several options.
It would all be a part of the state, with federal land inside. California still has its borders, even though it has millions of acres of federal land, within. At worst, you'd need "easements" (which almost every other state does) for travel between them. The state would control most of the streets, businesses, and neighborhoods. The federal government would have jurisdiction over their property, as well as possible the Potomac (I have no idea how those laws work in other states).
There are many steps and varying solutions. In no particular order:
-Public financing of elections
-Stricter limits on individual/corporate donations
-Matching of small dontations, at 6:1 or higher ratio
-Ban donations by non-individuals to candidates and party PACs
-More transparency laws for all politically active groups/shed a light on dark money
-repeal Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo
-shorten election season so candidates have to raise less money
-only permit fundraising during election season
Given that the first bill the Democrats passed when they took the House in 2019 included some campaign finance reform...? More likely than term limits.
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
-Louis Brandeis
I would love to see something like that passed. Perhaps there is a solution that wouldn't involve a Constitutional Amendment - but merely legislation tied to funding (vis a vis the Commerce Clause). Something like Election Modernization Act, include the funding for states, but ONLY if they make the changes. And then tie it to other funding to make sure the States are "motivated" to get it done.
*some* campaign finance reform isn't going to stop phone banking with politicians being as bad as it is, and that's if said bills hold up in a 6-3 supreme court. Most of those steps, as said, is pie in the sky in todays current political climate. CU likely needs a constitutional amendment at this point, which yeah good luck. Im not disagreeing that getting to the root of the issue, would be ideal, but it's not happening in any form of a foreseeable future. Term limits aren't either tbf, i'm not argueing for them, but term limits is somewhat of a bandaid to the real problem.
There's more than one way to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
It doesn't have to go through Congress (where it would die in committee because it would be directly bad, financially speaking, for those in office), it could be done at the grassroots level, passed through state assemblies (where the politicians take in FAR less in donations, and most have lucrative private sector jobs and state legislature jobs, simultaneously), and ratified that way. It would take longer, and would need extremely broad support among the general population to defeat the avalanche of opposition ad spending, but it is possible.
I don't think it is though. In the absence of any sort of reasonable campaign finance reform (and/or lobbying reforms), I think it could actually make it worse. You think the revolving door is bad now? Imagine if you had a limit of three terms: at any given point, you would have approximately 1/3 of Congress- and the most experienced ones at that- a) unable to be held to account by their voters, and b) actively looking for their next gig. The lobbyists and special interests would be acutely aware of this fact.
I'm just trying to figure out how exactly term limits would stop politicians from phone banking for a quarter to a half of their time- because even if they personally don't need donations due to being term-limited, they are still going to be asked to phone for dollars for the party as a whole- especially since they will be the ones with the longest relationships with donors at that point.
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
-Louis Brandeis
I provided the link. <shrug> i can't explain why it helps the phone banking problem better then them. It does cause other problems such as lack of experience as you bring up, that there is no doubt. Which is why I'm specifically not argueing for or against term limits, there is no easy answer.
Im so damn confused by this response. I link an argument of people who want limits, you say that's not the answer, that the answer is campaign finance reform, so when I ask how that's done, you say put limits and anything would be welcome. I do agree with the later but confused why you argued the former. maybe a miscommunication on my end though.