http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/opinion/18mon2.html We can’t turn on the television these days without being assaulted by ads anonymously savaging candidates. Welcome to politics in post-Citizens United America. The Supreme Court allowed unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions but didn’t require the folks picking up the tab to stand behind their words. It is too late for this campaign. The House approved a measure requiring phantom check writers to identify themselves on their ads and barring money from overseas corporations. Senate Republicans blocked it. Voters who say they’re fed up with negative politics — and sleazy back-room deals — need to demand better.
I have a few observations on this. 1) Obama is using this as a rallying cry in his recent speeches 2) Republicans are quite hypocritical in opposing transparency 3) The rules are the same for the democrats as for the republicans and it wouldn't be beneath them to take advantage if they could 4) George Soros has stayed out of this election cycle - he'd be leading the charge for doing this sort of thing on the dems' side
I really don't think corporations should be able to donate to campaign funds. I also think there should be a cap on how much someone can donate to a campaign. Level the playing field a bit. We should be voting for people based on what they stand for, not because they have more money than the opposition and can run endless negative campaign ads.
Obama (and W before him) pretty much had more campaign donations, even at little amounts, than the rest of the field and were able to run 1st class campaign organizations with all the frills. The thing is, the spending is actually speech, in the same sense that burning a flag is. So I think it should be allowed. But it should be well known who's spending what, so we can factor that into our decisions. Like we all know Meg Whitman is spending $100M+ of her own money on her campaign. Some people might see that as trying to buy the office, while others may see it as her not taking special interest money. But at least we know.
I really wouldn't equate it to free speech. They are or are trying to be public officials. Donations feel more like bribe money to me. If I hand a cop a couple thousand dollars and call it a "donation", how is that any different than handing a couple million to a guy who is running for president? I really don't see the distinction.
Campaign finance reform has proven to be a very slippery thing. For every law or rule, candidates find a way to get around it. I'd be happier to let them spend what they want (it goes into the economy, afterall), but have deeply serious repercussions for ads that are either misleading or untruthful. Serious enough to lose an election over.
As long as the voters know someone handed a couple thousand dollars to a campaign, the voters can decide if the candidate is going to perform some quid pro quo.
You know what the problem is Denny? Most of the voters have no fucking clue. How many people hear a rumor or an ad and just believe it without actually fact checking? I'm talking both sides here. People will believe anything these days. If someone ran an ad saying that Chris Dudley punches babies, I'm sure a percentage of the population would believe it. You can make the facts available, but a lot of the population is either too lazy or too naive to actually look for them.
Well, the candidates will run an ad saying "so and so took $X from this dastardly outfit" and the other guy will run an ad saying "look, the local newspaper says the other guy is full of shit" Nice and soundbite sized.
Outlaw any and all campaign ads of any sort. They're all worthless hype, lies and distortions anyway. Face to face debates should be sponsored by taxes, should be mandatory for all candidates, and should be the only exposure voters have to the candidates. The quality and competence of our leaders would increase tenfold immediately.
Who qualifies for these debates? The Nazi Party USA candidate and the Communist Party USA candidate? The ability to attract and raise money adds some serious qualification for a candidate.
True, if you don't put some sort of restriction on it, you'll have all sorts of crackpots in the debate. Libertarians, even. You could just have a signature requirement. X voters have to sign a petition in order to get you into the debate. barfo
Not anymore unfair than having limits set by fundraising is. Arguably, a lot more fair, since the $$$ system shuts out those w/o money. Anyone can sign a petition, except of course for the hillbillies who didn't learn to write. barfo
I'd be OK with X signatures to get free air time, but not with shutting out people who want to buy it. Like I said, it's speech like burning a flag. Putting their money where their interests lie - and what's wrong with that?
I'd rather see the candidates burn flags. There's no reason why the system should favor rich people. barfo
It doesn't favor rich people. Obama raised a shitpile of money from small individual donors. Far more than all the special interest groups combined.
