We should have publicly financed campaigns, and free air time for candidates.

[Edited on January 7, 2006 at 1:41 AM. Reason : sp]

1/7/2006 1:40:54 AM

this is the kind of idea an eight year old would have

1/7/2006 1:47:26 AM

1 dollar, 1 vote.

1/7/2006 1:48:52 AM

I think elections should be determined by which side can cheer the loudest at a Hurricanes game.

1/7/2006 2:22:13 AM

Quote :

"this is the kind of idea an eight year old would have"

AN EIGHT YEAR OLD COMMUNIST

1/7/2006 11:15:52 AM

Government is supposed to represent the people, not corporations or special interests

[Edited on January 7, 2006 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ..]

1/7/2006 11:29:36 AM

Worst trolling ever.

1/7/2006 11:49:51 AM

Quote :

" The Clean Money, Clean Elections (CMCE) approach is designed to provide a clear alternative to the current system of raising and spending largely special-interest money to finance election campaigns. It allows qualified candidates to run for public office without compromising their independence since they won't have to ask for money from those with a vested interest in public policy. The system is completely voluntary and candidates who do not wish to participate are able to raise and spend private money for their campaigns, as they do today. Qualification -- Candidates first must meet ballot access requirements, and then must meet the eligibility threshold for Clean Money funding. Most CMCE proposals require candidates to collect, during a pre-defined qualifying period, a prescribed number of signatures and $5 qualifying contributions from registered voters in their state or district. To cover minor costs during the qualifying period, candidates are permitted to raise a limited amount of seed money from private sources in amounts not exceeding $100 per contributor. Primary funding -- Candidates who meet CMCE requirements and agree not to raise or spend private money during the primary and general election campaign periods receive a set amount of money from the Clean Money fund. General election funding -- Candidates who win their party primaries and qualifying independent candidates who agree to the voluntary restrictions receive a set amount of general election funding from the Clean Elections, Clean Money fund. Non-participating candidates and independent expenditures -- In order to maintain a financially level playing field, Clean Money, Clean Elections candidates who are outspent by privately financed opponents, or targeted by independent expenditures, are entitled to a limited amount of matching funds. "

http://www.publicampaign.org/congress/howitworks.htm

1/7/2006 12:02:29 PM

I don't remember the exact figures, but in Freakanomics, the author showed that money does not win elections, it barely even affects them. It was something along the lines "spending twice as much money would gain you, on average, 1% more of the vote."

While 1% may seem like a lot in a really close election, the fact is you must have been close to winning the election anyway for it to help, obviously not a subversion of the system.

1/7/2006 10:14:46 PM

I'm more concerned with the corruption and how politicians use their office to benefit their donors, than I am the effect money has on the election.

Look at last year's Medicare bill which was a huge payoff to pharmaceutical companies. Hell, they wrote the legislation.

1/7/2006 10:34:44 PM

Quote :

"A Donor Who Had Big Allies # DeLay and two others helped put the brakes on a federal probe of a businessman. Evidence was published in the Congressional Record. By Richard A. Serrano and Stephen Braun, Times Staff Writers WASHINGTON — In a case that echoes the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal, two Northern California Republican congressmen used their official positions to try to stop a federal investigation of a wealthy Texas businessman who provided them with political contributions. Reps. John T. Doolittle and Richard W. Pombo joined forces with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas to oppose an investigation by federal banking regulators into the affairs of Houston millionaire Charles Hurwitz, documents recently obtained by The Times show. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was seeking $300 million from Hurwitz for his role in the collapse of a Texas savings and loan that cost taxpayers $1.6 billion. ADVERTISEMENT The investigation was ultimately dropped. The effort to help Hurwitz began in 1999 when DeLay wrote a letter to the chairman of the FDIC denouncing the investigation of Hurwitz as a "form of harassment and deceit on the part of government employees." When the FDIC persisted, Doolittle and Pombo — both considered proteges of DeLay — used their power as members of the House Resources Committee to subpoena the agency's confidential records on the case, including details of the evidence FDIC investigators had compiled on Hurwitz. Then, in 2001, the two congressmen inserted many of the sensitive documents into the Congressional Record, making them public and accessible to Hurwitz's lawyers, a move that FDIC officials said damaged the government's ability to pursue the banker. The FDIC's chief spokesman characterized what Doolittle and Pombo did as "a seamy abuse of the legislative process." But soon afterward, in 2002, the FDIC dropped its case against Hurwitz, who had owned a controlling interest in the United Savings Assn. of Texas. United Savings' failure was one of the worst of the S&L debacles in the 1980s. "

Congress is representing only moneyed interests, not the American public. Look at Abramoff and all the other Washington scandals.



[Edited on January 8, 2006 at 12:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2006 12:29:07 PM

Yes, but I don't see how your "clean elections" post would prevent or even hinder that. Politicians don't let industry write the legislation because they want campaign contributions, since campaign contributions do not win elections, they do it because they want industry to fund their pet charities, such as McCain and his multibillion dollar foundation.

1/8/2006 1:33:25 PM