Public Campaign Action Fund - presidential race - Comments

Give him (and me) a break

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:59:41 +0000

Obama needs that money in order to compete with the huge weight of the GOP and their supporters, just because money isn't given to the McCain campaign doesn't mean that all of his friends aren't spending millions on promoting him and putting Obama down. It's just not a fair fight.

Bundles of Favors

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:55:48 +0000

As long as a corporation has the legal standing as a person, nothing will change.We have been trying to reform the process of electing our representatives all my life,and I am fifty-two years old,and the only change that has occured is business now totally controls government for their benefit and their benefit only.Sad but true. We have failed the founding fathers and ourselves by allowing this to happen.

McCain and Public Financing

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:24:53 +0000

The DNC wants the FEC to investigate McCain's decision to first opt in to the public financing program during the primary election, then to opt out once he was the presumptive nominee and his fundraising prospects improved.

But isn't McCain violating that agreement?

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:43:36 +0000

I thought I heard that the DNC was trying to sue the FEC or something because McCain was violating the public financing agreement already...?

McCain has been bought and paid for by big oil

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:57:58 +0000

What happened to the "maverick"? Where'd he go??? I guess he's seen the light. Ever since he wanted to be president, he needed to learn who really runs the GOP. It's truely the party of the powerful. So McCain, desperate to win, is pandering to anyone and everyone who will get him elected. What can we expect if he wins? Four more years of George Bush. He's a company man too. What else could anyone ever expect? No surprises. We know what we're getting. The only question is whether "the people" will be fooled again. It's a close call.

Thanks for the info. BTW

Sat, 10 May 2008 22:41:46 +0000

Thanks for the info. BTW I've marked it @ http://www.searchallinone.com/Other/The_frustrations_of_Linux_UPDATED__KyleStubbins-com/

clean and fair elections

Thu, 08 May 2008 20:01:01 +0000

I support the public financing of elections to make them fair.

Old Money

Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:17:05 +0000

Is it any wonder that the US is on the brink of financial colaspe. We have sent thousands of jobs overseas, we are sending our investment money behind the jobs and we wonder why we are in trouble. Think about it. It takes jobs to earn money. It takes money to buy products. It takes products to keep the economy going. Remove any one and the triangle begins to fall. The money people continue to buy our elections. The average American continues to pay a high price and gets little or nothing in return. Let's stop the stupidity.

Self-financing is not bad!

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:18:03 +0000

It may be an unpopular opinion on this blog, but I believe there's a big distinction between self-financed campaigns, which are often good, and corporately financed campaigns, which are almost always bad.

When we choose a physician, a lawyer, or a carpenter, we seek competence. We don't worry too much about whether anyone has the opportunity to enter one of those occupations. Political office should be the same way: we, the public, should seek to hire the most competent legislators. Equality of opportunity to run for office is not quite as vital a principle as it may first seem. The essential thing is getting the best.

There are quite a few political figures who have leveraged their personal fortunes into electoral success. And although some of them are almost comically unqualified -- think Ronald Lauder running for governor of New York -- a remarkable number of them are truly admirable politicians. I think of Senators Herb Kohl, Jay Rockefeller, and (previously Senator) Jon Corzine, as well as Michael Bloomberg of New York. They are idealistic and incorruptible, because they don't need the money that would corrupt them. And when we look at the history of rich people in politics, we have to think of FDR. There are also, of course, people like Ross Perot and Mitt Romney in that boat also, so self-financing is no guarantee of enlightment, but it does skew the odds in that direction.

Individual contributions are an interesting case. The idea of a candidate gaining office through many small contributions is appealing, but all too often individual contributions are a front for corporate interests, particularly when bundling is involved.

So the best solution might be to allow self-financed campaigns and publicly financed campaigns, but nothing else.

FAIR ELECTIONS

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:26:31 +0000

BRAVO!

RICO war think tanks and foreign lobbies

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:10:42 +0000

They are violationg treason, RICO, FARA, and non-profit laws. RICO and ban these war think tanks and foreign lobbies .

Public Finance Survey

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:32:11 +0000

I agree with you. Why is it that only McCain's ties with lobbyists are mentioned in the survey that I took for Public Campaign Action Fund? Hillary and many other Democrats are just as bad when it comes to perpetuating influence from lobbyists by taking their dirty money. She's become soft on Health Care reform and credit card companies due to her ties with lobbyists, not because of lessons learned from her first show down with insurance companies. In addition, Obama originally said that he would not allow the insurance companies to buy all the seats at the table when it came to health care reform (I attended the speech in San Diego), only to turn around and sell the insurance companies 2/3 of the seats. No health care reform will work without some serious controls on health care costs. Otherwise, we need to have a strong Public Campaign Finance system is this country. However, this will never happen with the two parties controlling the rules. Heck, even unions don't support Public Campaign Financing (they voted against it in California) even though it would be more beneficial to them. I've grown tired of everybody begging money from me to start their campaigns. I can't afford to anymore!!!

Reform-ulate entire system

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:14:54 +0000

You make some good points, Mark, but I think the flaws run deeper than you indicate. Many of them are rooted in the antiquated winner-take-all system we inherited from our 18th century predecessors. This system more or less guarantees a monopoly on elected office to the two establishment parties. This, in turn, means that they tend to drift towards each other and worry much more about winning elections than about actual policy.

Fortunately, we don't have to re-invent the wheel. The proportional parliamentary system has already been developed, experimented with, and, if not perfected, at least improved to something a lot closer to democracy than what we have here. For one thing, when parties don't enjoy a monopoly on power, they have to start "selling" a product to the electorate. They have to develop clearly articulated policy stances and approaches that differentiate them from each other, and they can afford to more closely follow the courage of their convictions, knowing that someone out there will agree with them.

Does this fix everything? No. But it would represent one hell of a start towards fixing things.

The beauty of it is that Congress could start by standing up to the administration as many European parliaments did in the 19th century, and refusing to approve any cabinet except the one that Congress itself selects. This would bring in parliamentarianism, in which the legislative branch controls the executive. The second step would be a constitutional amendment instituting proportional representation.

In such a system a president elected by the Electoral College wouldn't be such a problem, as s/he would have little power. An independent, appointed judiciary would be a good thing. And tight reins on election financing could hopefully limit the role of the corporate elite in the governing of the people.

Supreme Court Just does not GET IT

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:55:48 +0000

Unlimited campaign spending by one candidate is akin to your neighbor constantly bombarding you with excessively loud music at all hours of the night. Both are equivalent in its effectiveness in limiting effective free and equal speech!

Presidential Election Campaign Fund $1

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:29:00 +0000

Wiki this for starters. It's been around as long as I can remember. It's a no-brainer!

Only changes to this fund:

1. minimum SIGNATURES, not DOLLARS! This is the no-brainer part! It never has been and never shall be (on my watch anyway) "one dollar, one vote"!!

2. presidential AND congressional elections!

3. SOLE SOURCE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS! Watch the media outlets trip over themselves going after a couple pennies rather than a couple hundred thousand $! Same principle as "single-payer healthcare", see: suddenly, like magic, appears a BUYER'S (us the taxpayers) market as it should be rather than a SELLER'S market (the candidate with the most money gets the ad).

Did I mention this was a no-brainer?