• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maine, Seattle Pave Next Path For Campaign Finance Reform

jet57

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Maine, Seattle Pave Next Path For Campaign Finance Reform


WASHINGTON -- Voters in Seattle and Maine went to the polls Tuesday night and supported ballot initiatives to reform their campaign finance laws and expand the role of small donors in elections.
Maine voters backed by 55 percent an initiative that updated their system of publicly financed elections. The initiative will make it possible for candidates receiving public funds to compete better in the landscape created after two Supreme Court decisions tightened restrictions on public funding and flooded elections with unlimited independent spending.
In Seattle, voters backed a sweeping measure to enact public financing of the city’s elections by a vote of 60 percent to 40 percent. The measure will create a first-of-its-kind system of publicly funded “democracy vouchers” to be distributed to citizens to donate to candidates participating in the public funding system. Each citizen will be able to distribute four $25 vouchers to participating candidates. This goes along with a raft of other campaign finance, disclosure, ethics and lobbying reforms also included in the initiative.

The passage of both measures signals a new front in the effort to reform and democratize campaign finance. Since the 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited election spending by corporations, unions and, following a subsequent lower court ruling, wealthy individuals, public distaste for the role of big money in politics has increased dramatically. At the same time, avenues for reform at the federal level have shrunk as Congress and the Supreme Court are controlled by conservatives opposed to reform.
Click to expand...

A true war of attrition is beginning against Citizens United. Good'ol tenth amendment!

Thoughts?
 
I'm for campaign finance reform. The Supreme Court really screwed up on this issue. It's totally ridiculous the billions upon billions upon billions in superpac money and other monies raised by candidates as a whole. I say limit their total expenses and donations to about 10 million per upper tier candidates and not a penny more. The left spends billions and billions trying to get their candidates elected to supposedly help the little guy while the right spends billions and billions as well. If they used all this money raised to help the little guy then the left wouldn't have to fight for the little guy and the right would probably get by cheaper too. Both sides are nothing more than crooks and the American people are stupid to give either side a dime.
 
joG said:
In what way will this improve the electoral process. After all, that reinforces the the populist side of the election. Trump and Hillary would have all the cash.
Click to expand...

Not if reforms like this keep up. we're seeing the very same thing with respect to Marijuana right now in the several states that are exercising decisions on it. The idea is to un-incorporate our political system and our government. The whole thing is waaay away from its original intent by design in favor of a financial agenda wherein the working capital in that agenda is controlled by few to the detriment of the many. The idea is to put our system on a level playing field, which it certainly is not, AND THAT is what will allow the average person to feel like they have some control over our system, which only encourages participation. We have factions running the system and we can no longer afford that.
 
jet57 said:
Not if reforms like this keep up. we're seeing the very same thing with respect to Marijuana right now in the several states that are exercising decisions on it. The idea is to un-incorporate our political system and our government. The whole thing is waaay away from its original intent by design in favor of a financial agenda wherein the working capital in that agenda is controlled by few to the detriment of the many. The idea is to put our system on a level playing field, which it certainly is not, AND THAT is what will allow the average person to feel like they have some control over our system, which only encourages participation. We have factions running the system and we can no longer afford that.
Click to expand...


The structure of the electoral system should not be argued that it improves the probability of this that or the other agenda being easier to get passed. If anything the possibility that that argumentation might be correct should be a dire warning of a bad proposal. And that is from someone that thinks hash should have been legal before alcohol.
 
joG said:
The structure of the electoral system should not be argued that it improves the probability of this that or the other agenda being easier to get passed. If anything the possibility that that argumentation might be correct should be a dire warning of a bad proposal. And that is from someone that thinks hash should have been legal before alcohol.
Click to expand...

It is argued as such and that's why movements like the one in the OP are catching on. Ohio just threw out a legalizing of marygeewanna based on the monopoly rule that would come with it. THAT is a defeat of corporate control. The OP shows that the times are willing to change again and that money should not be a rule in politics.
 
jet57 said:
It is argued as such and that's why movements like the one in the OP are catching on. Ohio just threw out a legalizing of marygeewanna based on the monopoly rule that would come with it. THAT is a defeat of corporate control. The OP shows that the times are willing to change again and that money should not be a rule in politics.
Click to expand...

That does not make that proposal any better.
 
The Seattle measure is moronic, but I'm not surprised it passed. The "vouchers" are being funded solely by property taxes, so the only people paying for this is primarily homeowners. That means they'll get to directly fund the campaigns of the people on the city council who wish to act against the interests of property owners.
 
jet57 said:
Maine, Seattle Pave Next Path For Campaign Finance Reform




A true war of attrition is beginning against Citizens United. Good'ol tenth amendment!

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

they didn't really "reform" anything...they simply added new revenue streams.... that begin and end with taxpayer money.
...and independent expenditures are still allowed.

folks will understand someday.. .screwing with our 1st amendment rights is not a proper course of action ( though I am entertained by folks who get whiny because they aren't allowed to violate free speech )
 
joG said:
That does not make that proposal any better.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. As I said, when average people believe, through direct experience, that have more control over events around them, they are thereby encouraged to maintain that control. for instance, if average people had voting rights on city and county and state budgets, then said budgets would look and act a lot different, and social priorities would take charge. Name your issue, and now, control the ones in charge of them...
 
joG said:
In what way will this improve the electoral process. After all, that reinforces the the populist side of the election. Trump and Hillary would have all the cash.
Click to expand...

it adds more money into elections.

though some folks won't see it as an "improvement"
 
Thrilla said:
they didn't really "reform" anything...they simply added new revenue streams.... that begin and end with taxpayer money.
...and independent expenditures are still allowed.

folks will understand someday.. .screwing with our 1st amendment rights is not a proper course of action ( though I am entertained by folks who get whiny because they aren't allowed to violate free speech )
Click to expand...

The first amendment argument covers up the mess we're talking about, the same way the second covers up faction control of gun discourse and propaganda. The added revenue stream is a perfect valve for direct public participatory control over political financing that is designed to even up the odds for - "small business", get it?

Financial agendas for each state come with corporate participation depending on the area of said corporate agenda, so naturally, BIG money gets all the ink and air time and then the dice is rolled. It's a matter of planting and watering seeds in the minds of the voters: ther's land use, transportation, real estate, and a host of other interests that pour big dollars into their agendas. The more people that have a direct say so of the watering of the ideas, the less important said big money will become, and that's the whole idea.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The 10th Amendment doesn't, and cannot, overrule the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

Boy - the second has as much been overruled by the tenth....

Think about that.
 
jet57 said:
Of course it does. As I said, when average people believe, through direct experience, that have more control over events around them, they are thereby encouraged to maintain that control. for instance, if average people had voting rights on city and county and state budgets, then said budgets would look and act a lot different, and social priorities would take charge. Name your issue, and now, control the ones in charge of them...
Click to expand...

That is not an argument for an electoral system. The pro and cons are more efficiency of the system and not individual policies.
 
Thrilla said:
it adds more money into elections.

though some folks won't see it as an "improvement"
Click to expand...

Ah. So this is in addition to present financing.
 
joG said:
That is not an argument for an electoral system. The pro and cons are more efficiency of the system and not individual policies.
Click to expand...

Right: the current system is not efficient at all - for the rest of US. That's the point. The system as it stands, is only efficient for those who control it with money.
 
joG said:
Ah. So this is in addition to present financing.
Click to expand...

A financing system that makes no room for the little guy and thereby controls who we vote for.
 
What might succeed is if all candidates with above X number of supporters received public funding to bring them up to the level of the best-funded candidate. This would not simply be to level any playing fields. It would also make fundraising efforts superfluous after a reasonable point. No reason to raise another hundred million if every other candidate is going to get it automatically.

In this way, the individuals with the most money won't be able to use it to drown out actual speech they don't like.


However, I doubt it would fly as long as Citizens United remains the law.
 
jet57 said:
Maine, Seattle Pave Next Path For Campaign Finance Reform




A true war of attrition is beginning against Citizens United. Good'ol tenth amendment!

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I see nothing in what you've posted that in any way counters or negates the effects of Citizen's United. How does public funding of campaigns negatively impact on third parties financing ads for or against candidates they support or oppose respectively?

Citizen's United, if I'm not mistaken, extended free speech rights beyond individuals outside of campaigns to entities outside of campaigns. And if I understand constitutional law correctly, a State cannot implement a law that negatively impinges upon the constitutional rights of a person/entity, so even if you were right that this negatively impacts on Citizen's United, it would, in effect, be unconstitutional.
 
jet57 said:
Right: the current system is not efficient at all - for the rest of US. That's the point. The system as it stands, is only efficient for those who control it with money.
Click to expand...

Well then it should be easy to show this is more efficient and less biased.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The second what? The 2nd Amendment? The second in the statement I made, meaning the 1st Amendment?
Click to expand...

State's rights dude. Simply state's rights
 
jet57 said:
A financing system that makes no room for the little guy and thereby controls who we vote for.
Click to expand...

Don't I remember that Obama did very smartly with small donations?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I could be wrong, but I see nothing in what you've posted that in any way counters or negates the effects of Citizen's United. How does public funding of campaigns negatively impact on third parties financing ads for or against candidates they support or oppose respectively?

Citizen's United, if I'm not mistaken, extended free speech rights beyond individuals outside of campaigns to entities outside of campaigns. And if I understand constitutional law correctly, a State cannot implement a law that negatively impinges upon the constitutional rights of a person/entity, so even if you were right that this negatively impacts on Citizen's United, it would, in effect, be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

The new measure opens the door to more money to offset Citizen's United and balance the monitory control of the election system. And, no, you do not understand state's rights: a right remains the same at its core, but states can exercise power over its fringes: banning assault weapons, voting down gay rights issues, as just happened in Texas yesterday etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom