Would you support Campaign Finance Reform?

I say people/corporations should be able to put as much money as they want towards as many candidates as they want and they do not have to report any of it.

Only morons fall for political advertising - and I don't care about them. They are sheep - useless, irrelevant (no matter how many there are of them). And most of these knuckle heads are ridiculously partisan anyway and wouldn't vote for anyone outside 'their' party no matter what advertisements say.

People with properly working brains/emotions decide for themselves and political advertising makes no appreciable difference to them.

So make it all limitless and straightforward.

Anybody that thinks campaign reform is in ANY way a remotely viable solution to the pathetic state of politics in America, imo, simply does not understand the problem.


BTW - I have never given a dime to any political campaign.

Frankly, I think you have to be staggeringly naive to throw your money away in such a fashion.

Jack Hays said:

Limits on money put the state in position to ration political speech.

Click to expand...

I'd rather the state (ie, we the people) be in the position to ration political speech than the pocketbooks of billionaires.

But there's nothing wrong with rationing if everyone gets the same amount. It equalizes the playing field and that's what we need most of all. One candidate doesn't get an advantage over another by having rich friends, and it removes the temptation for them to sell out to those with money.

Dave Mittner said:

I'd rather the state (ie, we the people) be in the position to ration political speech than the pocketbooks of billionaires.

But there's nothing wrong with rationing if everyone gets the same amount. It equalizes the playing field and that's what we need most of all. One candidate doesn't get an advantage over another by having rich friends, and it removes the temptation for them to sell out to those with money.

Click to expand...

makes one wish for the election system that england uses for its parliament.

DA60 said:

I say people/corporations should be able to put as much money as they want towards as many candidates as they want and they do not have to report any of it.

Only morons fall for political advertising - and I don't care about them. They are sheep - useless, irrelevant (no matter how many there are of them). And most of these knuckle heads are ridiculously partisan anyway and wouldn't vote for anyone outside 'their' party no matter what advertisements say.

Click to expand...

Morons with as much political clout as you have, come election time.
I, for one, would like to mitigate the damage they can do when the likes of the Koch brothers finance campaigns to pull them around by the nose rings.

Dave Mittner said:

I'd rather the state (ie, we the people) be in the position to ration political speech than the pocketbooks of billionaires.

But there's nothing wrong with rationing if everyone gets the same amount. It equalizes the playing field and that's what we need most of all. One candidate doesn't get an advantage over another by having rich friends, and it removes the temptation for them to sell out to those with money.

Click to expand...

One a scale of 1 to 100 (1 being the least), my trust of politicians is about a 5.

My trust of billionaires is about a 20.

Billionaires are usually greedy...I can handle that. I understand that. They have everything else (that they can buy), so their agenda's are usually readily apparent.

Politicians often have a myriad of emotional deficiencies and lusts that are rarely seen or understood.


I trusted politicians once....then I grew up and saw the world for what it is.

Imo, trusting politicians is the bastion of the ignorant and/or the naive (no offense).

I believe that NOTHING a politician EVER says or does should ever be trusted until their sincerity is proven by unbiased facts/data.

DA60 said:

One a scale of 1 to 100 (1 being the least), my trust of politicians is about a 5.

My trust of billionaires is about a 20.

Billionaires are usually greedy...I can handle that. I understand that. They have everything else (that they can buy), so their agenda's are usually readily apparent.

Politicians often have a myriad of emotional deficiencies and lusts that are rarely seen or understood.

Click to expand...

Perhaps due to having to toe the line between representing their constituents and appeasing their campaign donators.
Empower the donators and it might throw politicians into even greater chaos.

Dave Mittner said:

Perhaps due to having to toe the line between representing their constituents and appeasing their campaign donators.
Empower the donators and it might throw politicians into even greater chaos.

Click to expand...

I think it is just that most politicians are corrupted human beings with mental/emotional deficiencies who care far more about themselves then their constituents.

DA60 said:

I think it is just that most politicians are corrupted human beings with mental/emotional deficiencies who care far more about themselves then their constituents.

Click to expand...

And perhaps the single worst influence for corruption is money, second only to the promise of money in the future.
Which is why its power should be removed from campaigns as much as we can manage.

I might even go on to say that holding certain political positions should cap even what you can make after leaving office. Even if we were to remove the influx of money while a politician is campaigning or in office, they could still sell their loyalties for the promise of wealth after they leave office.

Or even the imagined promise of wealth afterwards. When you look at the fortunes made on the lecture circuit, through book deals, and--in Palin's case--reality TV, you have to wonder how many celebrity wannabes would see political office as nothing more than a stepping stone to other fortunes. That, too, presents a significant risk of corruption or disinterest once they're in office.

DA60 said:

I think it is just that most politicians are corrupted human beings with mental/emotional deficiencies who care far more about themselves then their constituents.

Click to expand...

Yet, by opposing disclosure, you would favor allowing them to work in complete secrecy regarding to whom they would be answerable to via funding. That is utterly illogical.

Dave Mittner said:

I'd rather the state (ie, we the people) be in the position to ration political speech than the pocketbooks of billionaires.

But there's nothing wrong with rationing if everyone gets the same amount. It equalizes the playing field and that's what we need most of all. One candidate doesn't get an advantage over another by having rich friends, and it removes the temptation for them to sell out to those with money.

Click to expand...

I disagree completely. Everything is wrong with rationing even if (or especially if) everyone gets the same amount. Freedom is freedom and equality is equality; they are not the same and are often in tension. I'll go with freedom and take my chances re equality, rather than enforce equality and hope freedom survives.

Ockham said:

I voted no and here's why. I think campaign finance reform is and would be a sham. I would however support a constitutional amendment for term-limits.

Click to expand...

Had a thought recently.

We ought to double the presidential time in office (from 4 to 8 years), but reduce the term limit to 1.
We ought to triple the representative time in office (from 2 to 6 years?), but reduce the term limit to 1.
We ought to increase the senatorial time in office from 6 to 9 years, keeping the staggered elections, but reduce the term limit to 1.

Basically I'm saying the term limits for all politicians should be one term only, but I think we need longer terms because they need some time to get to know the place.


OR something like that...

Jack Hays said:

I disagree completely. Everything is wrong with rationing even if (or especially if) everyone gets the same amount. Freedom is freedom and equality is equality; they are not the same and are often in tension. I'll go with freedom and take my chances re equality, rather than enforce equality and hope freedom survives.

Click to expand...

Political equality is a necessity in a representative democracy. One person, one vote.

The problem is, while we technically still have that, the person is easily manipulated. And manipulation of the person is the manipulation of the vote, and political equality becomes compromised.

That said, it's impossible to remove all manipulation. We're manipulated by our parents and the environment we grow up in. But manipulation through the media has become insanely prominent in the last hundred years. And those with the cash to control the media have the capacity to skew the manipulation in their favor to incredible effect. And that manipulation tracks all the way to a persons' vote.

Dave Mittner said:

Political equality is a necessity in a representative democracy. One person, one vote.

The problem is, while we technically still have that, the person is easily manipulated. And manipulation of the person is the manipulation of the vote, and political equality becomes compromised.

That said, it's impossible to remove all manipulation. We're manipulated by our parents and the environment we grow up in. But manipulation through the media has become insanely prominent in the last hundred years. And those with the cash to control the media have the capacity to skew the manipulation in their favor to incredible effect. And that manipulation tracks all the way to a persons' vote.

Click to expand...

It's called free, unrationed political speech.