College of Political Knowledge
Election Series
Yet another thought provoking exchange with a loyal reader, Quin or Quintessential Havoc (blogroll will take you this insightful blog) (yes, I know I refer to Qunin often and the reason is he has the brilliant insight of being one of my most loyal readers and on top of that he has some insightful opinions….we may not always agree but at least we can have a dialog)…..we were talking about things that could be done to make the election process more legal and open…….one of the common things was that some sort of campaign reform is needed….Quin is from the UK and their system seems to be a bit more open than ours….
Campaign reform always comes up and I have my ideas like public financing, open primaries and so on….and as I was researching this I came upon these reforms on Squidoo.com and being essentially a lazy person I thounght I would post them in this piece……
- Make all campaign donations anonymous. Pool all donations into a public general election fund. This fund would supply campaign funds for candidates running for ALL offices – from local through national positions. The amount of money a candidate receives would be based upon the office they were running for.
- Accounting for the general fund and each campaign’s individual funds would be updated DAILY – not once a quarter as is currently done – and posted to the internet so that any citizen can log in and look at how their money is being spent.
- All private donations to individual candidates would be outlawed. No donations from individuals, corporations, special interests, political action committees, non-profits, etc. No private donations of ANY KIND.
- All candidates would receive FREE AIRTIME on both radio and television. They would receive comparable time slots to their opponents and all candidates would receive the same amount of time.
- There should be no filing fees to run for office. Instead of current requirements and fees, candidates would be required to submit a resume or curriculum vitae detailing their educational and work background, an essay outlining their stands on the issues, a statement of their intent – why they are running for office, and a detailed account of all affiliations with organizations – corporations, political, social, non-profit, board of directors, etc.
- Debates should be held more frequently than they currently are. They should run for a minimum of 8 weeks prior to the election. All candidates should be allowed to participate – regardless of party affiliation. They should be broadcast live on radio, television, and the internet. After the debate has ended, full video should be posted on the internet to allow those who were not able to watch to see it at a later time in its entirety.
- Finally, a voter’s guide should be published by local governments and sent to EVERY registered voter at least 8 weeks prior to the election. This guide should be put together in an easily understandable format and will include information on local through national candidates for office. It should include all information obtained by the candidate at the time they filed to run for office along with a detailed voting record for all incumbents.
All in all, I will agree with most points of these reforms….I think that if we are to truly have a government of the people then we need reform and need it NOW! None of these reforms are difficult to accomplish except for the money part….millionaires do NOT want to give up their “seed” money……this is needed….when a candidate spends 104 million dollars to get a $500,000 a year job, then something is seriously wrong with the system we have.
I might add that ALL elected officials should be held to a mandatory 65 retirement age…that way we keep incompetent old farts from imposing their BS on the rest of the country.
Thanx for the heads up.
Hmmm… good post and I get the points and yes, the UK system is pretty different – for instance, donations got to the party rather than the individual, but then it’s the party leader who becomes PM (like President) and can be changed by the party without further election.
However, the list above from Squidoo seems rather fanciful to me. Firstly, I can’t see why anyone, apart from the occasional philanthropic oddball, would want to make any donations at all. I mean, what would be the point? So, in order to fund candidates, central government would have to fund the pool referred to – which is what you and I suggested in the first place.
Secondly, something like most of that already applies in the UK. It does improve things slightly, but it hardly solves the problems. For a start, the idea that all these candidates can be together in the same place at the same time and debate sensibly seems positively dream-time, rather than just fanciful. In any event, no one ever tells the truth at such public debates because the most unpalatable truths (the ones that almost ALL candidates know but will not admit to) would spell electoral doom for any candidate or perty that admitted to them – unless ALL others did too at the same time – and there’s no way to guarantee that! In fact, the people mostly do NOT want to face the truth!
I also take issue with you that being old and farting makes one incompetent. Being young (farting or not), though, frequently makes most people idealists to be polite, or fanatical dreamers without experience or common sense to be more honest. So I don’t think age should be a factor at all – alertness and an IQ test in which any candidate is forced to score higher than an average chimpanzee would, though, make sense – no offence intended to chimpanzees. That might though leave us all short on candidates, which is a problem we might have to address, if such a test were to be seriously considered.
😈
I understand…but have you seen some of the old farts in our Congress…I mean 80 and still living in the 50’s is NOT the way to govern.
We it the goddamn party would have a consistent platform and stick to it…then I think the people donate to the campaigns…..
And you are correct….people do not want the truth if it contradicts there vision…..
Well, perhaps they’d fail the test – on the alertness part if nothing else.
The way I read it the list states that donations would go into a pool for use by ALL candidates from ALL parties – why would anyone donate to that? Huh?
I see what you are saying…if you are trying to buy influence this would not be the way…..
Exactly… and unless you are trying to buy influence, or you are at the very least trying to boost the chances of the particular candidate/party you favour, why else would you give money?
Ew. Those points sound so incredibly non-reform. (I hate the use of the word “reform” to describe the total destruction of something–namely, the ability to support who you want to support and the freedom to not support someone you don’t like.)
And talk about free speech suppression: forcing radio stations to provide FREE and EQUAL air time? Ugh. Since when did radio station owners, managers, DJs, and hosts lose their First Amendment rights?
I do not think this will erode any support….it may even help those low info voters become more in tune to the country and its needs…..I do not believe anyone is saying that they cannot say anything they want…just that ALL candidates have equal time to present their cases.
You know I can’t argue with anything that Natassia says – except in one way… if yoy are going to take her attitude (and it does as I say have some obvious validity) thne you might just as well find the guy in the country with the biggest gun, make him president and forget elections.
IF you are to have democracy and elections then EVERY candidate must have an equal opportunity – how much money, how many friends, the wealth of their friends, which media mogul they are bending over for, who has the biggest gun, or dick, or bust and all the rest MUST be absolutely MINIMISED and kept irrelevant as far as possible DURING THE ELECTION – at any other time it’s open season.
I like the idea of calling it destruction rather than reform, because the crap we have at present is not fixable and does indeed need to be destroyed – BUT, we need something better to put in its place first!
Why do ALL candidates have to be given “equal time” by a private broadcasting company? Or are you referring to government-funded radio stations like NPR?
And Quin, how do you come up with the idea that equal outcome (equal amount of time aired on radio stations) is equivalent to equal opportunity?
Every candidate has the equal opportunity to approach a radio station with his message. And every radio station has the equal opportunity to embrace or reject his message.
People will listen to and broadcast the stuff they want to hear and say. If a candidate’s message sucks, radio stations aren’t going to want to put it on the airwaves. And why should they have to if they don’t want to?
Natassia…I just think that all points of view should be open to all Americans……regardless of their leanings….and at election time it should NOT be about who has the most money what is best and that cannot be framed properly if there is only one side available….and I think that it is a responsibility of these people to help Americans make an intelligent choice with their vote….since it is supposedly so important.
Since when were all points of view NOT open to all Americans especially since the advent of the Internet?
Not only is it a slippery slope, but it’s a one-way sleigh ride into censorship the minute you start requiring American business to promote (ie give airtime to regardless of ability to pay) a candidate they might not agree with.
You are right….but how many freely check out all points of view? Americans will find the outlet that best supports their worldview. I know this may upset you but take FOX News…when do they have a “liberal” on in their opinion shows? Whereas even a progressive outlet like MSNBC has numerous GOP strategists and commentators on each and every opinion show….that I appreciate because I can get both sides in one place……radio is the same….I do not like the insults and lies that are spread in the name of news.
I know you may not like the idea but the regulations for operating a station should include political ads….where is the problem with an ad for candidate X followed by an ad for candidate Y? I do not think it would lead to any formn of censorship.
So if the radio or TV station YOU normally listen to or watch doesn’t like the message of the person who would normally be YOUR favourite candidate, you’ll never hear it because the station owner doesn’t like it. That sounds like anything but free speech to me. In fact, in my book, THAT sounds like censorship…
Still, maybe you know different, but it sounds to me as if your media owners are deciding FOR you what you should and shouldn’t hear and I wouldn’t personally like that! If on the other hand, YOU hear the guy’s message and decide for YOURSELF that it sucks, then you don’t need to listen anymore – THAT is what I call fair at election time.
“but how many freely check out all points of view? Americans will find the outlet that best supports their worldview”
That’s what freedom is all about, baby. 😉
You choose your own reality rather than someone else choosing for you.
Mentioning Fox News brings me to my next point: why is equal coverage of the views (liberal vs. conservative) a good thing if one of those points-of-view is regarded as wrong by the people who prefer to watch Fox in the first place? It’s like wondering why BET doesn’t have more shows featuring white people as the main chararacteres.
That’s not what BET viewers want to watch.
By demanding that a TV station play an ad at a certain time is taking away the freedom of the station to choose what and when they want to air advertisements. Just because YOU might think the idea is fair and wouldn’t lead to censorship doesn’t make it any less tyrannical in principle.
Yes, I agree in general with all that and I understand and applaud the sentiments behind it. If only the reality matched that dream. Which is why, at election time, I do believe that something needs to be done – and no, I wasn’t referring to state or any other sort of radio, which relatively few people listen to anyway – I was talking about NATIONAL TV and newspapers… The Internet is no answer at present, not least because much of America still has quite limited access to broadband connection to the net.
Can you suggest what might be done? The idea that the guy with the most money wins is simply pathetic since there is no likelyhood that the richest guy is also the the cleverest or the most able. He may be, but he (or she) probably isn’t and the best one could say about them is that they are probably generally “lucky”.
This is all MUCH too darned important to EVERY citizen to be left to “the one who has the most acceptable message” – I can guarantee to do that and be that guy – of course it will all be lies, but that doesn’t appear to matter under the current system.
The truth is that, at present, the person MOST likely to elect the next president is Rupert Murdoch and he’s a bloody Australian! Yet he can stop ANYONE getting their message out satisfactorily in the US, if it doesn’t suit HIS business plan, or he just doesn’t like the guy that day – so much for free speech! HE is the puppet-master and MOST Americans will listen because his channels know what to say and how to say it – they are masters of the art.
It has NOTHING at all to do with individual freedom – which I would agree with and support with my dying breath – IF you had it, but I am convinced you don’t – only the illusion of it using Murdoch’s smoke and mirrors, or that of some other media mogul.
It’s similar in the UK, but much better in my opinion for a number of reasons, but then we have a different system with much better facilities – including, incidentally, superior internet connections and speeds with almost universal availability throughout the country.
The US was, I’ve always understood, based largely on the “American Dream” – i.e. ANYONE can make and make it big, if they’re good enough and work hard enough. That is simply no longer so – not least because the only asset you really need these days is to be pals with or appeal in some way to someone like Murdoch – everything else is often irrelevant.
@ Quin
Ah, yes. Another crisis of sorts that requires government intervention to fix: candidates aren’t getting an equal quantity & quality of television time and press coverage to bombard the stupid masses with their message of how they’re going to save them. Excuse me for feeling insulted at what you suggest.
People who care about who represents them will do the research themselves or join an organization that will help keep them informed like their local tea party.
Um, how about, NOTHING.
That is definitely not always the case my friend. Money doesn’t guarantee a win. Besides, now small businesses, corporations, and other organizations have the freedom to advertise up to election day for whatever candidate they support. If there is a really great candidate who is going to be an asset for small businesses, you’d better believe they’re going to jump all over the opportunity to help him win an election, regardless of how much money he has in his bank account.
I’m so glad there are informed elite thinkers like yourself who know what’s best, especially since we know we can’t leave every citizen to be responsible for choosing the message that makes the most sense to them. (No wonder Obama got elected, right?!)
You lost me at Rupert Murdoch. Had you said Sean Hannity, I might have agreed with you. I’ll bet the average American doesn’t have a clue who Murdoch is…since they’re so uninformed and all. It’s not like he’s a Fox News talking head or an American Idol judge or anything.
Uh, lost me again. Something to do with paranoia and conspiracy theories and all that.
Thank God for the blogosphere, right? No Rupert Murdoch there. 😉
And thinking a thing wrong does not make it so either…..
Who gets to define what “wrong” is?
Apparently the government…I guess that is part of the deal I make with them to allow them to govern me….
@ Quin
Nope. Because if I don’t like what I hear on a radio station, I don’t listen to it. And whoever is relying on that station to advertise their business (or candidacy or anything else) is not going to receive my money or my vote.
What do you think happened to Air America? lol Free market economics, my friend. Money talks and bullshit walks. The consumer is a powerful force. If a station loses listeners, it hurts the advertisers who will seek out a new, more popular station.
Besides, it’s the owner’s station. He has the freedom to censor whatever he wants through his station. The problem with censorship is when the government does it because the government doesn’t have to rely on voluntary contributions (like donors, consumers, etc.) The government has a reliable stream of revenue at the barrel end of a gun.
But media owners aren’t my slaves, and therefore I cannot force them to air something they don’t want to air.
Slavery was outlawed a long time ago, you know.
It’s a real pity slavery (particularly in the US) didn’t end then! Sorry, but I think you are the slave and don’t realise it. To suggest that a few radio stations may air something or not is really not the point at all and NONE of us has EVER suggested the GOVERNMENT should control the media even for a day – if you think that then you have simply misunderstood.
The important (not the piddly little local radio stations) media owners are VASTLY more powerful and much fewer in number than you seem to suppose. You do NOT get information THEY don’t want you to have, which IS censorship and, when it comes to your democratic rights at election time, it is NOT acceptable.
The days when the consumer was all powerful are long gone. These days consumers mostly buy and get what they are told they want, though they don’t realise it. It’s usually done cleverly and subtly, but it happens nevertheless, which is why I say something has to change AT ELECTION TIME.
I dare say we have to agree to disagree because you are I think unlikely to believe me, but the media (not the politicians, or the pressure groups, or the corporations, or the people – the MEDIA) or even more specifically the very few big media moguls who own most of what’s relevant (and they are in general not even American, or British for that matter), are distorting everything you see and read – you really cannot believe a word you hear or read on either side of the political divide these days.
These days, when the media tells me it’s Monday, the first thing I do is check my calendar!
I’m so glad you know the Truth, Quin! Thank God for wise men like you to wake me up to the fact that I am enslaved by the media moguls! (And I always thought it was the federal government that had me enslaved by taxation and regulation. Boy, was I clueless!)
I’m sure Mr. Lobotero would heartily disagree with you. The wealth of information I’ve gleaned from his blog alone must have Mr. Murdoch seething.
Like I said before, thank God for the blogosphere…and the tea party!
Well, that explains why I keep buying that same brand of Pinot Grigio. And I always thought it was because I liked the flavor.
But if the media really is control of us, are you sure your calendar is accurate?
(I wonder if you’ll grasp the deeper meaning of that question.)
Natassia, thanx for the props and I am pleased that you are here and joining the conversation…..and I am pleased that in some cases I am mistaken…I wish I had many more conserv readers….the exchange of ideas is always a good thing that is how this system is suppose to work.
May I say that I also appreciate the fact that you are checking out the whole range of posts and not making a decision on one or two…..I have been as critical of Obama and his minions as anyone.
Every year I give an Anal-Ocity award for the most anal statement made I will be posting the finalists in December and ask my readers and friends to pick the winner…I hope you will join in.
I prefer to comment on liberal blogs.
Echo chambers are boring…even if they’re right. 😀
Cool! Am I a liberal blog?
Lobotero: sorry about this – it won’t happen again…
Natassia: I know no more truth than you do, but at least I am aware of that fact, the converse of which seems to have escaped you. However, I do fear, madam, that you are, as the expression goes, talking out of your ass.
Since all you seem to have in your arsenal for debate is to attack with snide and extremely offensive remarks backed up by an unreasoned and unbelievably unbreakable faith in your pathetically broken system of “democracy”, I do not intend to trouble you, Lobotero (who I think you’ll find does NOT agree with much of your rather strange point of view), or for that matter anyone else in the future.
You can rightfully congratulate yourself on that since you have convinced me of one thing at least – it is quite pointless trying to discuss anything with someone with your level of “conviction” and, under the American system at least, mouth and money seem to rule everything.
Incidentally, should you care one way or the other (which seems unlikely), the answer to your final question is “No. Of course not!” but that IS the whole point I have tried to make had you taken the trouble to consider it. I wonder if YOU will grasp the deeper meaning of THAT…
http://bit.ly/b052lo
I offended you?
Good. I was trying to incite some kind of emotional response. Lord knows your logic went out the window a long time ago and all the paranoia stuff was reminiscent of those Truther folks out there insisting the U.S. and Israel were behind 9/11.
Or are you one of those too?
Funny how you criticize my ammo, when your bullets consist of:
YOU’RE A SLAAAAAAAAVE OF RUPERT MURDOCH! WAKE UP, ZOMBIE! AHHHH!
I also am not too concerned with whether or not you (or Mr. Lobotero, for that matter) agree with my point of view. If I was looking for agreement, my ass would be over at Intellectual Conservative, enjoying the echo chamber.
And the rest of your rant was too boring to comment on. But I am flattered that you at least bothered to take the time to type it.
Oh, and I especially love your “she is the one for me” entry. Your pontification and judgment on the personal character of that woman was enlightening.
Pot, meet kettle.
(I suspect Mr. Quin enjoys a little sado-masochism, because if he didn’t, he would have stopped responding to my abuse a while ago.)
(Boy, did I enjoy myself on this thread!)
Quin and Natassia….please change the subject….I do not want this to devolve into something that will frustrate me…may we say that your guys strongly disagree and go on with the dialog….I never thought that a post on campaign would go on like this…..I like it but I do not want either of my two best commenters to get wizzed at each….Thanx for understanding
The one thing that seems to be off limits is the funding….i.e. McCain…..he spent $21 million in his primary run just to get the chance to try and get re-elected for a $400,000 a year job…..and that is not excessive? O)r how about $110 million for a primary campaign? That just sounds like bought politics to me.
Well, unless he is actually buying votes, I really don’t see how someone can just set an arbitrary cap on campaign spending.
Who gets to decide? And how much is “too much”?
So there is NO problem with someone spending millions for a job that pays thousands…..right?
I just had a thought regarding consumer power…
The consumer loses power when a company no longer depends on his purchases to stay in business.
This happens any time a company can expect the government to save it from insolvency…which is why I don’t like bail-outs or subsidies.
So, I would argue that the main culprit in all of this is not the business nor the consumer but rather the government.
Natassia…..what would have happened if the TARP had not kicked in….would we be in a better place?
Who is that someone? Whose millions is he spending or is he using his own money? And for what “job”? And for what employee?
Apocalypse, of course.
Thank God the federal government knows how to spend our money better than we do.
It is morning! Among the candidates McCain, Obama, Liebermann or Hell most of them…….it takes millions to secure a job that pays thousands…….I love to write but if it took millions to secure a good gig I think I would rather use it where it could do some good…..I could pretend that I feel that my writing is doing some good but I am not that big of an egotist.
How would you feel if we had a more participatory democracy?
You mean, more laws on the ballots like Prop 8?
And you are taking a very simplistic view of the whole politician job thing: purely the campaign money spent vs. the paycheck issued to the rep at the end of the day.
Depending on how a representative votes on legislation presented in Congress can determine the fate of billions (dare I say, trillions?) of dollars.
At least something that will truly show where the people are on a subject….right now we depend on out-dated polls…I hear a lot about what the people want but see very little proof.
According to my standards, yes. 😀
Okay…..I do not feel that it is a liberal blog per se…….but I do have liberal leanings on some issues, conservative on others and even some Libertarian….I try to point out absurdities where I find them….at least absurd to me……
I used to feel like that…until I realized that I was just being a fence-sitter about my own principles. 😛
And you got involved? Bravo for you! I have been observing and writing on politics for over 40 years and I have NEVER seen such hate as there is today…there will ALWAYS be disagreement but it has gone way beyond the art of compromise and into what appears a willful desire to see our system fail….at least as it appears to me.
I don’t like to use the word “hate” to describe political leanings. Besides, hate can be very legitimate and necessary, depending on what it is aimed at.
What do you mean by “appears a willful desire to see our system fail”?
And what do you mean exactly by “our system”?
I would argue that depending on what the System is, I may very well want to see it fail. Or I may want to see it cleaned up a bit. So, it depends on what you mean by that.
Unfortunately, not everyone thinks like you and hate is used to describe ones opponent.
Federalism…….our form of representative government……