How About A Complete Ban On Political Contributions?

[DistressedAmerican]

Public money of equal amounts to all candidates that meet the criteria (whatever those would be) for inclusion in the general election.

Just take the freaking money out of it. Right out.

Level the playing field financially so that the endless fund raising (not governing) can come to an end and people can decide who they like based on something other than who has run the largest number of ads in their state.

Who among us does not agree that there is too much influence for those with large pocketbooks?

Who among us would not like to see an end to these obscene fundraisers?

Who among us feels well served by the system as it stands?

IMO, donations are the single largest source of corruption in our system and we should really CONSIDER SOME HARSH RESTRICTIONS.

I for one have never thought of political donations as "Speech". So, I do not buy the arguments that say such a rule would restrict free speech.

Are there other objections that I am not thinking about? Usually are...

[Burried News]

1. But how will they educate the electorate?

Sign me up - I agree with you. We are already dumber than dirt anyway. At least we can stop the noise and ratchet down the CONfusion.

[mzteris]

2. good ideas

Allowing those who are not "career politicians", and those who are not "wealthy" would allow us to elect more representative individuals, I think.

Campaigning though is an expensive proposition in this day and age. TV, ads, print, etc...... does money come general election fund? One for fed, one for state level, one for local? Where will it come from? Taxes? Is it mandated % and/or amount that must be put in the coffers?

Let's define "criteria" for who gets and what for. Else you get people "running" just to "get the money"...... Petitions, qualifications, what else? Endorsements?

I think all TV/Radio stations should be REQUIRED to donate a % of time for political messages. (Personally, I think said messages should be person speaking only on what their position is - stop the slick ad-produced "sound bite" and flag waving crap. Stop the attack ads! It's journalists JOBS to investigate the individual and their stances and the evidence of their experiences. NOT hatchet jobs. But unbiased qualified journalism!!)

[ComerPerro]

3. I think the $2000 limit is a good start

Because I think people should be able to give money to politicians.

But I think it should be more strictly monitored and regulated, because there are a lot of people really exploiting the hell out of our current system. Nothing ever really seems to get enforced.

One nice thing would be to curb corporate "sponsorship"

[Greyhound]

4. See this thread;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5041084&mesg_id=5041084

[napi21]

5. I really liket the description I heard of the regulations in Great Britan.

No TV advertising at all! Candidates are given a specific amount of free TV time equally.

there is NO restriction on newspaper, magazine or direct mail campaign advertising though.

I LOVE IT!

I can make the decision to ignore those pages in the paper or magazines, and I have a standard practice of depositing my junk mail in the trash can on the way back from my mailbox. I could actually watch my favorite TV programs without having to keep the remote in my hand!!!!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. I was talking to a dear frriend about this last night. Pigs will fly first

before this happens.

[SOS]

7. Unilateral ban on coprorate and PAC contributions

would be the quickest way to save the Party. The media attention would be worth millions in free advertising. The Dems would instantly be free to hammer a populist anti-corporate theme which would win the 2008 election. We are hamstrung by our Party's acceptance of money from Exxon, GM, Big Pharma, MBNA etc.
How to pay for the 2008 election? 60 million voters for Kerry. If 2 in 10 would send $50 we'd have $600 million. Enough to win. Also our unilateral disavowal of corporate and PAC money would spur individual donations.

[Perky]

8. I disagee

I have a consitutional right to support the candidate of my choice. And as much I detest large money contributions, I honest do not know where the line is drawn.

If TOm Hanks want to give Democrats $2 Miilion it is really no different than Warren Buffet giving the GOP $1.8 Million

I don't deny that the influence of money is too much but I have yet to figure out who you can deny people the right to give to the party of their choice. ANd whether you think money is speech or not...the courts think otherwise.

How would you divvy out funds to lesser parties and cadidates?

I would be fine with banning contributions from publically traded companies and Unions, But I don't think you can limit in any way contributions from individuals

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Warren Buffet Is A Democrat

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Warren_Buffett.php

[Perky]

20. oiops brain fart

Yeah I knew that somehow,,buyt the point is if Hanks has a right to give @million in SOft money so should anyoneelse

[shraby]

13. Ban contributions from individuals also....

otherwise the rich fat cats will still have a lot more influence than Mr. Ordinary Citizen. It's always who gives the most gets heard the most.

Let taxes pay the bill, and the candidates get equal amounts. When they've spent their allotment, it's gone so they need to spend it wisely.

Also do away with lobbyists. Outlaw them. The only people they represent are large corporations anyway. The citizens have the power of writing letters, email and phone if there is an issue they want brought to the attention of their congresscritter.

[RB TexLa]

16. I agree

And I think if I have something to say about Bush or whoever, constitutionally what is the difference between my simply telling everyone I see on the street what I think and my buying an ad in the New York Times to tell them?

[cynatnite]

24. I think there should be a cap on overall donations...

Balance it out with the media only allowed to give a certain amount of free airtime to candidates.

Small groups get money to promote the candidate of their choice. I do think those groups should be held to a high standard of truth. Remember the swift jerks?

There has to be a better way of campaign finance reform.

Maybe reforming the electorate is something to consider.

[Seansky]

9. although I know it'll never happen, I wish it there would be a gap

and the media required to air equal time on all the runners...No money for ads.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. Only if candidates can't spend their own money either on ads etc.

Otherwise the Bloombergs of the world will buy every single election.

[mattclearing]

11. I like the idea, but the detractors will say it centralizes political

discourse under the government...thus self-perpetuating itself.

They will also say that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for elections (Where were they when Diebold came knocking?).

Publicly funded elections seem like a no-brainer to me, but a lot of people think it invites corruption and political inbreeding. I don't see how we could get much worse in that regard, though.

[marbuc]

14. Completely ban soft (and PAC) money donations

and restrict the ability of PACs and 527s to run negative ads that explicitly refer to the opposing candidate. Many of these ads are slanderous, which of course, is not covered under the first amendment.

I've also thought it might be a good idea to commision a nonpartisan "truth in political advertising" committee to review advertisements for accuracy before they air (like a Factcheck.org with muscle), but pols would find a way to politicize that too.

[MadHound]

15. Hear hear friend,

I've been screaming for publicly funded election campaigns for years and years now, and it seems that finally it is starting to catch on.

Great idea, let's do it.

[eShirl]

17. how about, only those eligible to vote may contribute

and only up to a certain maximum amount. That would completely eliminate corporate donations, but I'm sure there's a downside I haven't thought of.

[sepia_steel]

28. You may have something there.

People are greedy, though. Who will be the first Dem to ask for this, I wonder. Even our great leaders like money... people like money.

Although I do think some kind of sulotion is worth striving for.

[shance]

18. First step, we must yank the corporations out of the contribution pyramid.

That's a big elephant to eat right there. That's the main source of corruption.

We eventually need to get all contributions out of the picture. Id say lets close all the corporate loopholes first.

[sam sarrha]

19. corporations cant speak! those speaking for them maxed their contributions

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. But, but..that would be democracy rather than the current oligarchy!

It might even introduce a system of more than the one party rule we now have!

And, just think of all the poor, unemployed, politicians and their moneybag masters!

Phew...but never fear, the oligarchs and their political puppets aren't about to turn loose of reins of power.

[ms liberty]

22. Al Gore was calling for this a long time ago...

For some reason I want to say it was in the '88 primaries, but I could be wrong. But the basic fact is that Al Gore called for public financing of elections. He had a pretty detailed plan, I think...it's been so long now. I do remember he was widely castigated for his viewpoint. Now he could say "I told you so" but he wouldn't.

[sepia_steel]

30. Well then.

I like Gore more and more.

that rhymed.

I guess my TV has an automatic shut-off. That was creepy.

and now I'm off to be spastic in some other thread :-P

[ArkDem]

23. Let us also get a ban on anyone making more money than

anyone else. That'll fix the problem!

[DistressedAmerican]

25. Well That Is Another Stupid And Pointless Post From My Fave Purveyor

of such pointless crap.

Does it make you feel good to be one of the snarkiest posters on DU? It really is saying something (about you).

[ArkDem]

29. One of?

[cynatnite]

27. Good idea...no one is allowed to make any more money than us!

:bounce:

[sepia_steel]

26. I think we should have a cap. a federal limit.

we can still try to help and it the tank's full, we can help someone else. no more money influencing it - i want ideals and values and policy stance. Free equal tv spots for everyone is a great idea - maybe part of the amount could include that.