Say Anything Blog

Don’t try this at home, kids. McCain is a trained “professional.”

No Free Lunch

I think the only limitation on contributions should be that candidates can only receive donations from people who are their constituents.  Presidents can accept from everyone, Senators can accept from people in their state, Representatives can only accept from people in their district, and so on.  But outside of that, let’s allow citizens to give as much as they want with every single donation (no matter how small) being recorded for transparency and posterity.

Rob,

Bravo!  I would add just one tiny proviso:  campaign contributions should be limited to US citizens.  Period.  No corporations, not PACs, not unions, or 501s or 527s.  Only US citizens who are by definition legally eligible to vote.

And each and every contribution accounted for, no matter how large or how small.  In this digital age of instant information, there is no excuse for us not knowing who contributed what to whom yesterday.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Damn Bat One, you beat me to it.  I agree with you whole-heartedly.  Campaign contributions should be limited to people who are eligible to vote for the candidate and full disclosure on each contribution.  And no funneling of money through the parties either.  A party should be allowed to put up ads as they want to support their candidates, but they shouldn’t be allowed to contribute financially directly to the candidate’s campaign.  That is the only campaign finance reform we need.

kbiel,

Great point about the political parties.  They should be treated like any other organization, for profit or not, foundations, corporations, unions, the lot of them.  No contributions, no advertising.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

I hear you about contributions coming from constituents, but that First Amendment is a pesky thing. If money is speech (and it is), and I want to support a candidate in, oh, New Mexico, because he promotes free-market policies I agree with, then the First Amendment protects my right to make those contributions. Otherwise, we have state-by-state regulation of free speech.

Yep, full disclosure. Why, again, was full disclosure not a primary component of McCain-Fiengold?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Presidents can accept from everyone, Senators can accept from people in their state, Representatives can only accept from people in their district, and so on.

Not sure I agree with this.

“What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” is a great marketing slogan.

But, it does not apply to say…California. What happens there effects many people outside their state.

Bat,

Bravo!  I would add just one tiny proviso:  campaign contributions should be limited to US citizens.  Period.  No corporations, not PACs, not unions, or 501s or 527s.  Only US citizens who are by definition legally eligible to vote.

Would you also propose a limit on what individuals could give? And if so, why?

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

Would you also propose a limit on what individuals could give?

No reason to that I can see.  Besides, I think that WOULD be a violation of people’s First Amendment Rights… as I firmly believe McCain-Feingold is now.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

No reason to that I can see.  Besides, I think that WOULD be a violation of people’s First Amendment Rights… as I firmly believe McCain-Feingold is now.

Okay. Help me understand your position.

No corporations, not PACs, not unions, or 501s or 527s.  Only US citizens who are by definition legally eligible to vote.

If we don’t have a ceiling on idividual donations whats to stop someone from like Soros from doing what he’s doing now? And do we want to stop him?

Should not people collectivly be able to pool their resources as in PACs etc. to express themselves?

Seems like a slippery slope to me.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

If we don’t have a ceiling on idividual donations whats to stop someone from like Soros from doing what he’s doing now? And do we want to stop him?

What Soros is doing now is funneling money through PACs, foundations, and front groups.  Unlimited individual giving with full disclosure is the best way to go because a) that is protected by the first and b) then we know who is giving what to whom instead of having money funneled through PACs that can come from anybody anywhere (even those who might not otherwise be eligible to donate to a compaign).

Kbiel,

You’ll have to excuse me, I’m a little slow.

What Soros is doing now is funneling money through PACs, foundations, and front groups.

Okay, but we already know this. Are you saying Soros wouldn’t be able to find another way to get this money to a candidate?

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

Sally,

I am not willing to limit my right to donate what I choose, to whomever I choose, simply to stop George Soros.  But I am willing to go on public record with my political donations, so long as that same requirement is enforced for everyone else… including Mr. Soros.

If the rules are as I’ve described them, roughly, then Soros can only donate to a single presidential candidate as well as to those candidates running for election in the state and congressional district in which he is a legal. voting resident.

If he wants to donate $100 million to Hillary’s campaign, he could do so, as long as the contribution was publicly reported immediately.  Financially, that would be a tremendous boost to her campaign, but only if she could convince enough voters that she was NOT bought and paid for by Mr. Soros.

I’m just optimistic enough about the American voting public to believe that neither Hillary, nor any other candidate, could pull that off.  With the instant transparency comes the accountability.

Incidentally, I also think it’d be a good idea if any and all unused campaign contributions were appropriated by the respective state or federal treasuries after each election.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

I don’t want to limit donations either and I like the idea of transparency.

I also believe I should be able to provide assistance to candidates in other states that are running for a national office. Kennedy, Durbin et. al. do as much harm to my liberty as my own senator Dominchi to augment it.

What I don’t quite understand, Bat, is why eliminate contributions from corporations and PACs etc.?

By the way, I’m apparently much more cynical than you. The american voter, in my view is largely uninformed and ignorant. If it was at all plausible, and it aint, I like to voter reform.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

Sometimes you can correct your spelling and I swear the computer changes it back…just to piss you off.

DOMENICI, there got it.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

Sally,

1. Far too few Americans involve themselves to any meaningful extent in our political process. Hell, we congratulate ourselves when a presidential election garners 60% of eligible voters.  By acknowledging that campaign contributions are a form of speech, and removing limits on individual contributions for those offices in which an individual has an electoral stake, I believe we would increase the relatively dismal participation and knowledge level of American voters.

I see you point about cross-state contributions, but I disagree.  I don’t think my contribution to Jack Murtha’s opponent in Pennsylvania, or your attempts to help oust Dick “the Dolt” Durbin outweighs the possibility of a situation such as North Dakota, where elected officials can rely on outside money and ignore their own constituents.

As for barring organizational contributions, I’m of the opinion that like non-citizens, children, etc., if it don’t vote it should not be allowed to donate to political campaigns.  If a company’s employees or a labor union’s members wish to support a particular candidate, they should be free to do so…as individuals. 527s, foundations, labor unions, and corporations don’t vote.  People do.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Well Bat,

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain your views.

You argue your points well.

where elected officials can rely on outside money and ignore their own constituents.

For myself, this points more to the corruption of the values of our politcians.

If a company’s employees or a labor union’s members wish to support a particular candidate, they should be free to do so…as individuals. 527s, foundations, labor unions, and corporations don’t vote.  People do.

As for this, I’ll have to give it more thought. My concern is that anyone one with the will to so can and will exploit the rules. Then it comes down to who is better at achieving that goal.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

Are you saying Soros wouldn’t be able to find another way to get this money to a candidate?

It’s not about whether he gives his money to candidates, it’s about his hiding his contributions.  That is what he attempts to do today.  If only individual citizens are allowed to give, then Soros can give as much as he wants to the candidates of his choice, but we will all know who receives his money.  As it is now, we only know that which we’ve been able to deduce through spotty evidence.

kbiel,

Thanks. So your mostly looking for transparency?
I tried to warn you..I’m slow as syrup from the artic pines. (the one there before this terrible anthropogenic cooling thingy)

Here’s my fear…everytime the goverment gets involved in censoring or legislating anything to do with free speech… they screw it up.

Even when they have good intentions they can’t get it right.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

Here’s my fear…everytime the goverment gets involved in censoring or legislating anything to do with free speech… they screw it up.

Even when they have good intentions they can’t get it right.

Sally,

You’re not cynical enough!  You assume they actually mean what they say.  First mistake.  Second, for most politicians the first rule of the game is to stay n the game, as Kim Roosevelt once put it.  Their first concern is their own reelection, not your First Amendment rights.

You only see this as a screwup because you view their actions from your/our perspective… not theirs.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Needless to say that cesorship is not a big problem anymore. The people have their right to know everything about their country, their nation and not only that. And they will, if not with this goverment, then the one that they will put in it’s place will surely do the job.
no fee balance transfers