Enough Already!!! It is past time to stop being beggars.

[Stinky The Clown]

Okay ... the thread title may be a bit hyperbolic, but the issue isn't.

Campaign finance reform.

Yeah .... that again.

Why do we keep pussy footing around this issue? Why do we worry about lobbyists and corporate donations? Why do we simultaneous decry and envy Bush's 'Ranger' program? Why do we need to keep expending so DAMNED much energy begging for bucks instead of governing the country? Why do we need to spend so much time and energy asking every voter for a ten buck or hundred buck donation? Why does every campaign speech - ostensibly a speech to present a view or a position - get sullied by and ending paragraph pointing us to the cashiers at the back of the room?

It is past time to look to nuanced changes to arcane legal limits on this or that donation. All that does is extend the game and allow new tactics to be used, with the cleverest cheaters made the winners of the game.

Stop it all and stop it right now.

There is only one right position.

100% publicly financed campaigns.

No donations from anyone for anything having to do with the campaigns of people for elective office.

The biggest cost is air time. And We the People own that. Allocate air time to each candidate and let him use it as he sees fit. Find a way to extend the mandate to the cable networks. It can be done if there's enough weight behind the notion.

The wonks can find appropriate and fair formulae and standards for how much money is allocated to whom. All I'm talking about here is concept. I'm not so good at the details.

Who could possibly oppose publicly financed campaigns?

If you have to ask, you're not paying attention.

[fmlymninral]

1. one problem

The Supreme Court has said that a candidate can spend his or her own money in any amount with out regulation. If we cut donations then the wealthy would be able to spend all they want and the average income candidate will have no chance to compete

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Not so

What you say about the SC decision is true, but it doesn't follow that they should be allowed to in the face of a new law for 100% public financing. The candidates own money would be a 'political donation'.

The whole point of a new campaign finance law would be to get **all** private money out of the process ... and that would include the candidate's own money.

[fmlymninral]

3. I believe

that the court ruled that the candidates own money was a first amendment issue so I am not sure how you could pass constitutional scrutiny

[BeFree]

6. Tell you how...

...you tax it. Yep, if they can tax-free some monies, they can tax others. we all pay taxes on money that has already been taxed once; and that is our money, eh?

Take the tax raised and use it to help fund public campaign financing. In fact, tax all contributions and spread the wealth! It is already done in other areas of government...

[K98Lover]

4. We could

nationalize all broadcast and print media. That would ensure that every candidate had an equal amount of coverage. It would also make news reports fair and unbiased.

[Grillydad]

5. Amen Brother

There are some legal issues, but I believe a court could find an essential government interest in insuring universal sufferage and that the ideas get out there, even those without a lot of corporate money behind them. The First Amendment has been and is regulated this can be found to be another legitimate restriction on free speach.