Presidential Campaign Process

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I don't believe that a Presidential Campaign should be run on contributions. It seems that if these campaigns were Federally and Equally funded, the best man or woman would have a much better chance of being elected.
For the people and by the people instead of for the money and by the money.
Obviously this is the cliff note version.
It would be good to hear your thoughts.

['75 Miller]

I dunno, ultra, seems to me private and/or corporate money will always find it's way back into the mix. Whether it's Republican big business (oil, for instance) or democrat big business (unions, media for instance) there will always be those trying to subvert the "new" process.
To me the whole thing is corrupt. I just fear the Republican's form of corruption less.

[Old Texan]

I can understand the benefits from removing corporate sponsorship. How do you propose funding be done? Without looking it up I can imagine campaign costs for the Presidential election to be minimum $100M, just for the primaries.
And if you do it for the Presidential office it would seem you'd have to do it for the House and Senate. Plus the individual Gov. races determine those that typically get elected Pres eventually. Bush, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, etc. So you can't allow corporate funds to control the "farm system".
Novel idea, but the cost to the taxpayer???? Tough one to sell.

[572Daytona]

I see it as a good form of income redistribution. Much more than taxes this seems to be one of the few things that gets money out of the pockets of the ultra rich (i.e. Soros) and creates lots of jobs during campaign season. Heck, even if the money is just being used to bribe skid row bums to go to the polls on election day at least it's getting money from the rich to the poor. And the money and the jobs stay in the USA (or have they outsourced campaign telemarketing yet?)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I can understand the benefits from removing corporate sponsorship. How do you propose funding be done? Without looking it up I can imagine campaign costs for the Presidential election to be minimum $100M, just for the primaries.
And if you do it for the Presidential office it would seem you'd have to do it for the House and Senate. Plus the individual Gov. races determine those that typically get elected Pres eventually. Bush, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, etc. So you can't allow corporate funds to control the "farm system".
Novel idea, but the cost to the taxpayer???? Tough one to sell.
IMO, the current cost to run a presidential campaign is a huge waste of money that the public ends up paying for one way or the other. Generally, in the primary arena, the campaign that raises the most money, wins, which again IMO, isn't how things should be.
I don't see limiting this to Federal elections as being a problem.
Obviously my concern is removing some of the corruption in Washington. If there are other more workable ideas, out there, please shere them.

['75 Miller]

I see it as a good form of income redistribution. Much more than taxes this seems to be one of the few things that gets money out of the pockets of the ultra rich (i.e. Soros) and creates lots of jobs during campaign season. Heck, even if the money is just being used to bribe skid row bums to go to the polls on election day at least it's getting money from the rich to the poor. And the money and the jobs stay in the USA (or have they outsourced campaign telemarketing yet?)
Income redistribution? You think that's a good thing? I'd just as soon cut soro's throat as look at him, but his money is just that ...HIS. what you describe, whether you meant to or not, is some some kinda RobinHood-esqe commie nonsense, and that's not my idea of fair at all.

[never_fast_enuf]

I don't believe that a Presidential Campaign should be run on contributions. It seems that if these campaigns were Federally and Equally funded, the best man or woman would have a much better chance of being elected.
For the people and by the people instead of for the money and by the money.
Obviously this is the cliff note version.
It would be good to hear your thoughts.
And when 100,000 "best people for the job" show up to get their federal money for running, what do you do?
Also, the lame stream media is so undeniably leftwing biased, how do you get competing messages out?
What I detest are candidates that claim they are taking the high road by NOT taking money from these special interest groups while they gladly take money from these special interest groups. What is even worse is when their supporters give them a free pass, even elevating their status for SAYING they are doing one thing while blatantly doing another. I have zero patience for that.

[bigq]

I don't like the idea at all, but then I don't like the feds paying for much of anything. That is not there job. Most of the crap they try to do should not be performed by the feds anyway according to the Constitution, but we may be past that point in time when it matters.
I would throw into the mix that it should not pay and they should be required to have a career and not as a politician. I believe this is how they get corrupt, stay to long and become lifetime politicians. they should serve there time and then out with them. Maybe they would do more to benefit society if they had more of a vested interest in it and had to be involved everyday.

[Old Texan]

I don't like the idea at all, but then I don't like the feds paying for much of anything. That is not there job. Most of the crap they try to do should not be performed by the feds anyway according to the Constitution, but we may be past that point in time when it matters.
I would throw into the mix that it should not pay and they should be required to have a career and not as a politician. I believe this is how they get corrupt, stay to long and become lifetime politicians. they should serve there time and then out with them. Maybe they would do more to benefit society if they had more of a vested interest in it and had to be involved everyday.
Bingo- "Term Limits". We must get term limits into the entire mix not just the Presidency.
Also we need to cut these "Lifetime" benefits the bastards keep bestowing upon themselves. It's pretty sad they are allowed to vote themselves pay raises and increases in benefits. It's the only time in their sessions they seem to stay focused and get something done.:mad:

[572Daytona]

Income redistribution? You think that's a good thing? I'd just as soon cut soro's throat as look at him, but his money is just that ...HIS. what you describe, whether you meant to or not, is some some kinda RobinHood-esqe commie nonsense, and that's not my idea of fair at all.
It's voluntary, unlike taxes or other government mandated means, what's not to like about that? Soros doesn't have to donate money to elections but he does. It seems to be one of the few things that gets big money out the pockets of guys like him and puts it back into circulation.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Nomination by petition and no primaries. Multiple party candidates and popular vote. Equal television coverage.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Actually the impact of corporate money is widely exaggerated. I'm not saying that it is not significant. But in the last few presidential elections smaller private donations have accounted for the most money, esp for the republician candidates (yes the avg donation size has been smaller for republicians than for dems). Back in 96 the dems biggest organized contributers were booze co's and the repubs was tobacco. Tobacco also gave a lot to dems but, not as much. If I remember correctly (I am on memory here) oil cos gave less than tobacco and booze (agricorps) overall.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Nomination by petition and no primaries. Multiple party candidates and popular vote. Equal television coverage.
Past attempts at such have been too easy to corrupt for my tastes.
I say we have unlimited contributions, that are immediatly reported on the internet. That way the public knows exactly who is backed by what intrests.
Either way McCain/Fiengold has to be repealed because it has only made the past problems worse and would more aptly be named The Incumbant Protection Act.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Actually the impact of corporate money is widely exaggerated. I'm not saying that it is not significant. But in the last few presidential elections smaller private donations have accounted for the most money, esp for the republician candidates (yes the avg donation size has been smaller for republicians than for dems). Back in 96 the dems biggest organized contributers were booze co's and the repubs was tobacco. Tobacco also gave a lot to dems but, not as much. If I remember correctly (I am on memory here) oil cos gave less than tobacco and booze (agricorps) overall.
Past attempts at such have been too easy to corrupt for my tastes.I say we have unlimited contributions, that are immediatly reported on the internet. That way the public knows exactly who is backed by what intrests.
Either way McCain/Fiengold has to be repealed because it has only made the past problems worse and would more aptly be named The Incumbant Protection Act.
As t recall, the drug companies were deep into the Bush election process. It just seems that the actions in DC are too heavily influenced by large contributions. I am not only for reform of the election process I am also for the elimination of earmarks.
Anything to curtail the corruption
I wasn't aware of any previous attempts to revise the Federal Election process.

[eliminatedsprinter]

As t recall, the drug companies were deep into the Bush election process. It just seems that the actions in DC are too heavily influenced by large contributions. I am not only for reform of the election process I am also for the elimination of earmarks.
Anything to curtail the corruption
I wasn't aware of any previous attempts to revise the Federal Election process.
Drug cos do indeed contribute. The past attempts I am referring to, are those of other nations. I really do believe that a more free and more transparent system, while not perfect, is nevertheless the best of all available options.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Drug cos do indeed contribute. The past attempts I am referring to, are those of other nations. I really do believe that a more free and more transparent system, while not perfect, is nevertheless the best of all available options.
ES,
How much more transparant could the process be than allowing all nominated by petition to race for te popular vote in the one election.
Most agree that our system and process are overly corrupt but many seem to want to accept the status quo and go about their business. Sounds very similar the millions of Americans who don't vote because they don't believe that their vote or opinion matters.
I'm not claiming to have the answer but I beleive that a great deal of DC corruption stems from the campaign process.
Both parties are corrupt and voting for the less corrupt, IMO, is not the way.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
How much more transparant could the process be than allowing all nominated by petition to race for te popular vote in the one election.
Most agree that our system and process are overly corrupt but many seem to want to accept the status quo and go about their business. Sounds very similar the millions of Americans who don't vote because they don't believe that their vote or opinion matters.
I'm not claiming to have the answer but I beleive that a great deal of DC corruption stems from the campaign process.
Both parties are corrupt and voting for the less corrupt, IMO, is not the way.
I agree the staus quo sucks, I just want the least restrictive (least corrupt) option. If you use the above system then you will have to limit the size of the field to a workable level. This has always been accomplished by setting a minimum number of signatures to qualify (a number that would have to be quite high) or by limiting it to a set number of canditates that have the most signatures. Either way, all it does is shift the corruption and the influence of money from the election process to the petition process.
I say, since this is the land of the free, that we should free it up and let people and corps do what they want with their money and let the voters know who's doing what with it as well.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I agree the staus quo sucks, I just want the least restrictive (least corrupt) option. If you use the above system then you will have to limit the size of the field to a workable level. This has always been accomplished by setting a minimum number of signatures to qualify (a number that would have to be quite high) or by limiting it to a set number of canditates that have the most signatures. Either way, all it does is shift the corruption and the influence of money from the election process to the petition process.
I say, since this is the land of the free, that we should free it up and let people and corps do what they want with there money and let the voters know who's doing what with it as well.
I agree that what you are suggesting could be very helpful and no doubt easier to implement. The only problem is that people would still have to off of their lazy's a**es and research.
I have often thought that election campaigns have no business on television. Not in the way of debates just campaign ads.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I agree that what you are suggesting could be very helpful and no doubt easier to implement.
Except for one thing................................
Our current system, esp after McCain/Fiengold, amount's to incumbant protection. It will be very difficult to make those sitting in congress vote themselves less job security.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Except for one thing................................
Our current system, esp after McCain/Fiengold, amount's to incumbant protection. It will be very difficult to make those sitting in congress vote themselves less job security.
There are some good points to McCain/Fiengold and there some bad.
My original thoughts were related to Federal Elections.

[eliminatedsprinter]

There are some good points to McCain/Fiengold and there some bad.
My original thoughts were related to Federal Elections.
What are the good points???
The good points are just the points that do the least harm (re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic) The (easlly predictable) overall outcome of the the bill has been to limit the ability of newcommers to raise enough money to run against and challenge incumbants, that already have established campaign war chests. That is no doubt why it recieved "bipartisan support" even though it was written by one of each party's biggest nimrods.:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

What are the good points???
The good points are just the points that do the least harm (re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic) The (easlly predictable) overall outcome of the the bill has been to limit the ability of newcommers to raise enough money to run against and challenge incumbants, that already have established campaign war chests. That is no doubt why it recieved "bipartisan support" even though it was written by one of each party's biggest nimrods.:rolleyes:
Here is the first one that caught my eye
Restricting the ability of corporations (including non-profit corporations) and labor unions to run "electioneering" ads featuring the names and/or likenesses of candidates.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Here is the first one that caught my eye
Restricting the ability of corporations (including non-profit corporations) and labor unions to run "electioneering" ads featuring the names and/or likenesses of candidates.
And that accomplishes what???:idea:They are in fact forbidden to run ads that feature the candidates names, faces, or voting records etc within 30 days prior to a primary or 60 days prior to a general election. How is banning organizations and advocacy groups from spreading their views on candidates, or the candidates records re their issues, not a direct infringement on political free speech???
Does this not also help insulate incumbant legislators from being held accountable for their positions on issues by industrial and or issue advocacy groups?
P.S. I could perhaps see some good coming from this, if they were banned from running ads that featured FALSE statements about candidates, but that is not the case with McCain/Fiengold. This tells me they cared more about protecting incumbancy than preventing corruption.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

And that accomplishes what???:idea:They are in fact forbidden to run ads that feature the candidates names, faces, or voting records etc within 30 days prior to a primary or 60 days prior to a general election. How is banning organizations and advocacy groups from spreading their views on candidates, or the candidates records re their issues, not a direct infringement on political free speech???
Does this not also help insulate incumbant legislators from being held accountable for their positions on issues by industrial and or issue advocacy groups?
P.S. I could perhaps see some good coming from this, if they were banned from running ads that featured FALSE statements about candidates, but that is not the case with McCain/Fiengold. This tells me they cared more about protecting incumbancy than preventing corruption.
Personally I don't see Restricting the ability of corporations (including non-profit corporations) and labor unions to run "electioneering" ads featuring the names and/or likenesses of candidates, as being a bad thing.
Wouldn't advocating term limits be a more simple way of getting your point across?
This thread was started with hopes of people sharing positive ideas with regard to reducing corruption in DC. Imposing term limits across the boards, IMO, would help.

[eliminatedsprinter]

You keep using that term "electioneering ads".:rolleyes: That is just a political catch phrase that only partly discribes a very small part of what that portion of McCain/Finegold actually does. It totally bans all organized groups of people from advertising their message re any specific politicians near election times. I don't care if you call it "electioneering" or a chicken sandwich, it is still political speech. And using the force of government to ban it, is far more dangerous than corporate money ever could be.....

[eliminatedsprinter]

I very very weakly support state legislative and local government term limits. I like them in theory, but here in Ca, they have done little if any good. We just keep recycling the same schlubbs from office to office and the wheeling and dealing for campaign funding etc (ie pay to play) seems to have perhaps, gotten even worse, than it was before.
P.S. I strongly support term limits for President and Governors. It is very important to any fedederal republic that both the state and national executive branches frequently peacefully transfer power from individual to individual. It is something that keeps us from having de facto dictators (even elected ones).

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You keep using that term "electioneering ads".:rolleyes: That is just a political catch phrase that only partly discribes a very small part of what that portion of McCain/Finegold actually does. It totally bans all organized groups of people from advertising their message re any specific politicians near election times. I don't care if you call it "electioneering" or a chicken sandwich, it is still political speech. And using the force of government to ban it, is far more dangerous than corporate money ever could be.....
Here is the paragraph from which the comment came.
Section-by-Section Summary of McCain-Feingold
The "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001" passed the Senate 59-41 on April 2, 2001. The legislation-known as "McCain-Feingold" after its co-sponsors, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI)-would ban soft money contributions to national parties; increase individual hard money contribution limits; and restrict the ability of corporations (including non-profit corporations) and labor unions to run "electioneering" ads featuring the names and/or likenesses of candidates. It also would redefine regarding what constitutes coordination between candidates and outside groups, require broadcasters to offer candidates the lowest available advertising rates, and permit candidates who face self-financing opponents to raise campaign funds in excess of the current limits. Each provision is examined and summarized below.
Reporting Requirements (sec. 103)
National party committees (and any of their subordinate committees) and certain other types of political committees are required to file reports with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") regarding their federal election activity. This section also abolishes the building fund, which was created to manage some soft money expenditures.
Electioneering Communication: Restrictions on Corporations and Labor Unions (sec. 203)
Corporations and labor unions are prohibited from running or indirectly financing electioneering communications identifying or targeting a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election. Only a corporation or labor union's registered PAC may fund such activities with hard dollars.
Here are a couple more for you rip up.
Please remember that I said "some good and some bad."

[eliminatedsprinter]

Here is the paragraph from which the comment came.
Section-by-Section Summary of McCain-Feingold
The "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001" passed the Senate 59-41 on April 2, 2001. The legislation-known as "McCain-Feingold" after its co-sponsors, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI)-would ban soft money contributions to national parties; increase individual hard money contribution limits; and restrict the ability of corporations (including non-profit corporations) and labor unions to run "electioneering" ads featuring the names and/or likenesses of candidates. It also would redefine regarding what constitutes coordination between candidates and outside groups, require broadcasters to offer candidates the lowest available advertising rates, and permit candidates who face self-financing opponents to raise campaign funds in excess of the current limits. Each provision is examined and summarized below.
Reporting Requirements (sec. 103)
National party committees (and any of their subordinate committees) and certain other types of political committees are required to file reports with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") regarding their federal election activity. This section also abolishes the building fund, which was created to manage some soft money expenditures.
Electioneering Communication: Restrictions on Corporations and Labor Unions (sec. 203)
Corporations and labor unions are prohibited from running or indirectly financing electioneering communications identifying or targeting a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election. Only a corporation or labor union's registered PAC may fund such activities with hard dollars.
Here are a couple more for you rip up.
Please remember that I said "some good and some bad."
I have yet to see the good in any actual practice.
I know I'm seeming to be a bit defeatist here.:( It's just that whenever government power is used to restrict or limit political expression it will have unintended (or perhaps sneaky intended) consequences. The main side effect of McCain/Fiengold has been that it has made incumbant legislators less accountable by preventing people and groups that have the money to advertise their record from doing so. Like I said I have no problem with banning anyone from running FALSE ads against candidates. But for some reason that is not a part of McCain/Fiengold.
No system is perfect. However, as a general rule I prefer the imperfections of freedom over those of government restriction, esp when it comes to political expression.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Here is the paragraph from which the comment came.
Section-by-Section Summary of McCain-Feingold
The "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001" passed the Senate 59-41 on April 2, 2001. The legislation-known as "McCain-Feingold" after its co-sponsors, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI)-would ban soft money contributions to national parties; increase individual hard money contribution limits; and restrict the ability of corporations (including non-profit corporations) and labor unions to run "electioneering" ads featuring the names and/or likenesses of candidates. It also would redefine regarding what constitutes coordination between candidates and outside groups, require broadcasters to offer candidates the lowest available advertising rates, and permit candidates who face self-financing opponents to raise campaign funds in excess of the current limits. Each provision is examined and summarized below.
Reporting Requirements (sec. 103)
National party committees (and any of their subordinate committees) and certain other types of political committees are required to file reports with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") regarding their federal election activity. This section also abolishes the building fund, which was created to manage some soft money expenditures.
Electioneering Communication: Restrictions on Corporations and Labor Unions (sec. 203)
Corporations and labor unions are prohibited from running or indirectly financing electioneering communications identifying or targeting a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election. Only a corporation or labor union's registered PAC may fund such activities with hard dollars.
Here are a couple more for you rip up.
Please remember that I said "some good and some bad."
I have yet to see the good in any actual practice. What problem has the above solved? Has political advertising become any more accurate, informative, or honest since McCain/Fiengold was passed??
I know I'm seeming to be a bit defeatist here.:( It's just that whenever government power is used to restrict or limit political expression it will have unintended (or perhaps sneaky intended) consequences. The main side effect of McCain/Fiengold has been that it has made incumbant legislators less accountable, by preventing people and groups that have the money to advertise their record from doing so. Like I said, I have no problem with banning anyone from running FALSE ads against candidates. But for some reason that is not a part of McCain/Fiengold.
No system is perfect. However, as a general rule, I prefer the imperfections of freedom over those of government restriction, esp when it comes to political expression.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I have yet to see the good in any actual practice.
I know I'm seeming to be a bit defeatist here.:( It's just that whenever government power is used to restrict or limit political expression it will have unintended (or perhaps sneaky intended) consequences. The main side effect of McCain/Fiengold has been that it has made incumbant legislators less accountable by preventing people and groups that have the money to advertise their record from doing so. Like I said I have no problem with banning anyone from running FALSE ads against candidates. But for some reason that is not a part of McCain/Fiengold.
No system is perfect. However, as a general rule I prefer the imperfections of freedom over those of government restriction, esp when it comes to political expression.
Understood. :)