Buying Elections
I promised yesterday I'd post about campaign money today. This is one of those issues I'm always "fired up" about! With the Supreme Court handing out individual liberties to corporations like I hand out Halloween candy, the time has come for our legislators to address the issue of campaign finance once and for all. I have some common-sense recommendations for them. My friends tell me they are entirely too reasonable, so there is no chance they will ever become law. Hey, a girl can dream, right?
1) Public funding of campaigns. I don't think campaigns should be solely funded by tax dollars, but there should be some sort of matching so that campaigns get an amount consistent with their level of support from individuals. Perhaps $X match per unique contributor to a campaign. The reason I like this idea is that I am not willing to publicly fund dozens of candidates in a general election. To qualify for public funding, a campaign should have to be viable, and attracting a significant number of contributors seems like a decent measure of that. This levels the playing field and still gives candidates the ability to raise money -- but in small increments from many donors. Candidates would not be allowed to "opt out" and there would be a maximum limit on the amount spent.
2) Maintain low limits on campaign contributions from individuals. The limits currently in place are OK by me. I don't want to see them increased significantly.
3) Make the candidate subject to the same donation limits as any other contributor. That way the Meg Whitmans of the world won't be able to fund their own campaigns. It's time to lessen the advantage of personal wealth in politics. There will always be some advantage; how many people who work full-time for a living can afford to leave their jobs to campaign full-time?
4) Impose stricter limits on "issue advocacy." Non-campaign advocacy groups would be able to advocate a position on an issue, but never mention a politician's name or characterize his or her positions. These groups would not be permitted to make campaign contributions. Only non-profit groups would have the right to issue advocacy.
For example, a group could run an ad that says, for example, "Global warming is fiction. Tell your representative to vote against cap and trade legislation." The same group would not be able to run an ad that says, "John Smith wants to increase your energy prices by voting for cap and trade legislation," or one that says, "Call John Smith and ask him why he won't support XYZ."
This would not limit the freedom of speech of those groups, but only their electioneering and campaigning.
4) For-profit corporations should have no political rights whatsoever. In spite of the fact that no one has explained this to the Supreme Court, corporations are not, in fact, persons. Corporations are not entitled to civil rights, freedoms, or political speech. My campaign finance legislation would make this clear. Corporations would not be permitted to contribute to political campaigns OR advocacy groups. Corporations would not be permitted to buy political advertising of any sort.
At right is a graphic from the New York Times regarding political spending.
OK, you elected officials, are you listening? Are you ready to do the right thing for the country? Are you ready to be accountable to the citizenry instead of lobbyists and corporations? Are you ready to remember why you're there in the first place?
1) Public funding of campaigns. I don't think campaigns should be solely funded by tax dollars, but there should be some sort of matching so that campaigns get an amount consistent with their level of support from individuals. Perhaps $X match per unique contributor to a campaign. The reason I like this idea is that I am not willing to publicly fund dozens of candidates in a general election. To qualify for public funding, a campaign should have to be viable, and attracting a significant number of contributors seems like a decent measure of that. This levels the playing field and still gives candidates the ability to raise money -- but in small increments from many donors. Candidates would not be allowed to "opt out" and there would be a maximum limit on the amount spent.
2) Maintain low limits on campaign contributions from individuals. The limits currently in place are OK by me. I don't want to see them increased significantly.
3) Make the candidate subject to the same donation limits as any other contributor. That way the Meg Whitmans of the world won't be able to fund their own campaigns. It's time to lessen the advantage of personal wealth in politics. There will always be some advantage; how many people who work full-time for a living can afford to leave their jobs to campaign full-time?
4) Impose stricter limits on "issue advocacy." Non-campaign advocacy groups would be able to advocate a position on an issue, but never mention a politician's name or characterize his or her positions. These groups would not be permitted to make campaign contributions. Only non-profit groups would have the right to issue advocacy.
For example, a group could run an ad that says, for example, "Global warming is fiction. Tell your representative to vote against cap and trade legislation." The same group would not be able to run an ad that says, "John Smith wants to increase your energy prices by voting for cap and trade legislation," or one that says, "Call John Smith and ask him why he won't support XYZ."
This would not limit the freedom of speech of those groups, but only their electioneering and campaigning.4) For-profit corporations should have no political rights whatsoever. In spite of the fact that no one has explained this to the Supreme Court, corporations are not, in fact, persons. Corporations are not entitled to civil rights, freedoms, or political speech. My campaign finance legislation would make this clear. Corporations would not be permitted to contribute to political campaigns OR advocacy groups. Corporations would not be permitted to buy political advertising of any sort.
At right is a graphic from the New York Times regarding political spending.
OK, you elected officials, are you listening? Are you ready to do the right thing for the country? Are you ready to be accountable to the citizenry instead of lobbyists and corporations? Are you ready to remember why you're there in the first place?
Comments
Post a Comment