Campaign finance reform isn't reform

Why I don't like limits on political spending

Published on April 12, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

Limiting people’s ability to participate in democracy is not good.

When you limit the ability of citizens to participate in the political process by restricting financial contributions you inevitably end up with a concentration of political power in the hands of those have the ability to get the word out without having to spend money.

This so-called reform would be little more than merely handing power to big media companies, celebrities and anyone else who can get air time without having to spend money.

Comments (Page 1)

citahellion

on Apr 12, 2004

And yet the lack of reform is merely leaving power in the hands of millionaires who can buy someone's way into an office.

I'd rather go the other way and try to come up with some way to make all campaigning free. Just like the incumbents in Congress can use the Congressional Post Office to send out all their mailings for free, any political flyer should cost the campaigner 0 cents to mail.

Of course, that opens up whole new cans of economical worms....

jeblackstar

on Apr 12, 2004

Now, whether it's good for "democracy" or not, it is reform

Cheers

Draginol

on Apr 12, 2004

Why should Barbara Streisand have more influence over who becomes President than say Bill Gates?

Gerry Atrick

on Apr 13, 2004

Cut out private funding altogether. Give the candidates the same amount of money and let them compete on a level playing field on equal terms.

jeblackstar

on Apr 13, 2004

I'd rather go the other way and try to come up with some way to make all campaigning free. Just like the incumbents in Congress can use the Congressional Post Office to send out all their mailings for free, any political flyer should cost the campaigner 0 cents to mail.

Actually, the Franking privelige can not be used to send out campaign flyers, any officer of the federal government found guilty of that can face serious jail time.

Cheers

on Apr 13, 2004

Cut out private funding altogether. Give the candidates the same amount of money and let them compete on a level playing field on equal terms.

Then there will be a LOT of 'freebies' from supporters. Not much difference. I'm against foreign and corporate donations but otherwise it's fine.

Solitair

on Apr 13, 2004

Surely any campaign reform will include 'benefit in kind' spending. It would be a serious loophole if it didn't. This would mean that any benefits received for free would still be counted against the overall expenditure.

I assume that media outlets would also have to take a balanced political approach. To be honest the whole issue of media and politics needs to be addressed very carefully. While a free media is good, a one sided propaganda media in an election would be very bad for democracy. Many countries force the primary media stations to give equal air time to all major political parties.

Finally, some countries limit total campaign spending, but don't limit total contributions. In such cases once the election process starts the spending (including benefit in kind) must be carefully controlled and kept within budget, but the donations are unrestricted. What parties do with excess cash after an election is up to them.

Campaign finance reform is not about limiting people's ability to participate in democracy, it's about giving everyone an equal voice. You know that one man one vote sort of thing.

Paul.

citahellion

on Apr 13, 2004

Why should Barbara Streisand have more influence over who becomes President than say Bill Gates?

Why should either of them have more influence than I do? One citizen, one vote.

Draginol

on Apr 13, 2004

Cut out private funding altogether. Give the candidates the same amount of money and let them compete on a level playing field on equal terms.

If you do that then you hand power over to the media. The media, which is outside these rules, can basically decide the President. And celebrities are therefore capable of having a disproportional impact because their opinions get covered in the media no matter how idiotic they are.

Why can't, for instance, me and my friends get together and pay for a newspaper advertisement or TV commercial explaining why we are for Candidate X? Why should WE get censored but Howard Stern or NY Times editorialists can espouse their opinions without limit?

Campaign finance reform is basically the media empowerment movement.

Draginol

on Apr 13, 2004

Campaign finance reform is not about limiting people's ability to participate in democracy, it's about giving everyone an equal voice. You know that one man one vote sort of thing.

An equal voice eh? So you would favor eliminating the press while you're at it then? After all, why should Peter Jennings have a "greater" voice than any other citizen? People who favor such censorship are almost always selective. They want to remove MY voice with the effect of magnifying the voice of those who go unaffected -- i.e. the media.

Unfettered campaign financing by individuals is the only way people like me can have a voice even remotely equal to a celebrity, journalist, or editorial writer. The people of our country who have jobs such as making food, building shelter, curing the sick, taking care of the infirm, they don't have the same voice as say Paul Krugman of the New York Times who gets to spew propaganda on a daily basis. So what is your plan to make Joe Voter have the same voice as Paul Krugman? Or Rosie O'donald? Or Barbara Streisand? Or Bill O'Reilly?

zboog

on Apr 13, 2004

Why should Bill Gates have more of a voice than me just because he has the money I don't have?

Daniel Minkel

on Apr 13, 2004

Tough issue, we don'e wan't the people with millions of dollars controlling everything but we also don't want the media controlling everything either. The fact is Joe voter is never going to be on an equal playing field. I would prefer to limit campaign donations to people/companies inside their district. Of course this is easier said than done but I don't really wan't a senator from Colorado getting funding from big money people of any type in Vermont. If your a congressman then your limited to your district.

SirOsiss

on Apr 13, 2004

I agree with you conceptually, but disagree semantically. We are a Republic and NOT a domocracy!

[blockquote]…[O]ur sages in the great [constitutional] convention…intended our government should be a republic which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism. The rigours of a despotism often…oppress only a few, but it is the very essence and nature of a democracy, for a faction claiming to oppress a minority, and that minority the chief owners of the property and truest lovers of their country. Fisher Ames, American statesman, 1805[/blockquote]

SirOsiss

on Apr 13, 2004

I agree with you conceptually, but disagree semantically. We are a Republic and NOT a domocracy!

I]…[O]ur sages in the great [constitutional] convention…intended our government should be a republic which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism. The rigours of a despotism often…oppress only a few, but it is the very essence and nature of a democracy, for a faction claiming to oppress a minority, and that minority the chief owners of the property and truest lovers of their country. Fisher Ames, American statesman, 1805[/I

Draginol

on Apr 13, 2004

None of the "reform" concepts have proposed any solutions that would curb the power of the media.

Why should Bill Gates have more of a voice than me just because he has the money I don't have?

The difference is that the government shouldn't forcibly keep some people from speaking and not others.

I prefer a system where the government isn't limiting anyone.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!