DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on February 06, 2007, 01:36:53 PM
-
No. Anything that inhibits individuals from making their voice heard, which includes purchasing air time and ad time, is a polar opposite of what the 1st amendment is all about. (Kinda like the unFairness Docrtrine). No limits, but COMPLETE DISCLOSURE of who's getting how much from whom. That way everyone can track precisely where money is going and if there are any obvious quid-pro-quo set-ups running, vs vague innuendo from a vague group calling themselves, the Freedom for America Coalition.
Just my 2 cents
-
Fair enough. Let's go with the understanding that you are completely against this and see where we can get to past that. In reality, you are against it but let's say for discussion's sake that you are willing to find some mutual ground where it would still irk the crap out of you but you could live with it happening if (X). Ok?
What if it was handled in this manner? (These numbers are arbitrary and not the point of the discussion. They can be made real in a later discussion one we find out where you could live with it.)
Everyone who gets, say, 50,000 signatures and $5 with from everyone who signs is then eligible for public financing. This way its not just everyone and their brother signing up to get like $180,000 bucks for a gubernatorial race wherever.
But if someone does do what is required then they get the money. (The sum would be determined by an average of the last three races' expenditures.)
Anyone who doesn't want to be publicly funded can opt out, no questions asked and they can raise all the money they want within the limits, for instance $2400 per person.
However, should someone opt out and raise more than the public funds limit, the state must then match each publicly funded candidate to the dollar that is raised by the candidate(s) who opted out?
Here's why I would definitely be FOR this. It absolutely doesn't do what you are worried about. It doesn't restrict anyone's free speech. If donors want to fund a candidate then they can and no one's stopping them but it doesn't allow that candidate to buy the election by having more airtime, ads than anyone else which I would hope you would agree is how some candidates have gotten into office.
We can say what we will about Ross Perot. I was very much in favor of his candidacy and for a short time felt that he was my guy. (I soon got the feeling he was kinda coo-coo.) What I loved about his run was that he wasn't shut out because he had the money to play with the big boys. Compare this to the candidacy of someone like Ralph Nader who couldn't compete in that same manner and had he been able to play with the big boys, who is to say what might have happened? It really doesn't matter what might have happened because he didn't have the money.
And that's the point. If the Big Two are competing at the $180,000 level and someone who really wants in can't raise $30,000 and compete then Americans have choice limitations. If freedom of choice is the goal, then supporting such a system as public financing only INCREASES choices.
With public financing, the also-ran parties of days gone by (Libertarian, Green, Socialist, whatever) have a shot and the elections can be decided on MERITS rather than name recognition.
The reservation I can see having greater merit on the other side of argument is that our tax dollars would be going to fund a candidacy that we might not necessarily agree with or may viscerally oppose. For me, for instance, it would really irk me if someone in the KKK where to get the necessary signatures and matching funds then qualify for the public funding.
What makes me ok with that is that it allows whoever I signed for and gave $5 to then, highlight the fact that the KKK candidate is a racist, therefore the question is not can the KKK raise more money and more money to make their message on non-racist topics louder with more advertising till the racist charge can't be heard because the other guy can't keep up financially.
Another plus to public financing is that it frees up the elected official to actually do his job. Rather than spending a lot of time at fundraisers and begging for money constantly, the elected official can actually listen to people and get to know his constituency as a whole rather than as dollar amounts. The plight of the middle and lower classes could actually get the ear of the official because he isn't being paid for his time in hopes of raising more money from whoever can throw a lot of money his way. Since the money issue is removed, the only way he can keep his office is by actually listening to the people who elected him and pleasing them.
With public financing or "clean elections", a full audit of the expenditures of the candidate would only be natural.
Lastly, this is already happening in many places across the US.
From Wikipedia
Clean Elections (also called Clean Money or Voter-Owned Elections) is a system of government financing of political campaigns (a form of campaign finance reform). It is currently (2006) only being voted and implemented on the state level in the United States. Some form of Clean Elections legislation has been adopted, mostly through ballot initiatives, in Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, and Massachusetts (though in the latter two it has been weakened or repealed). Clean Elections was passed by the Connecticut state legislature and signed by the Governor in December of 2005. Two municipalities in 2005, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Portland, Oregon have also passed Clean Elections for municipal elections. A clean elections ballot initiative, Proposition 89 was defeated in California in 2006 by almost a 3-1 margin.
Under a Clean Elections system, candidates hoping to receive public financing must collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. In return, they are paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaign, and agree not to raise money from private sources. Clean Elections candidates who are outspent by privately-funded opponents may receive additional public matching funds.
Because the system is voluntary, it appears not to run afoul of the United States Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo decision, which struck down mandatory spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
Comprehensive Clean Elections systems have been in effect in Arizona and Maine for several years. Not surprisingly, most candidates take the subsidies rather than compete under the resulting handicap of raising voluntary contributions. In Maine, an overwhelming majority (3/4) of state legislators take the government money. In Arizona, the same is true of a majority of the state house, as well as the current Governor (Janet Napolitano). In 2005 Connecticut also passed a Clean Elections bill.
One thing I forgot. It only behooves the candidate to stay in the public financing and not opt out and raise more money because doing so would cost the tax payers more money. If I opt out and raise $500,000 then the state or whoever must then match every other candidate (maybe not dollar for dollar in some cases) another $320,000 on top of what they've already gotten. Now that may not be an impediment to some but I think the voters would eventually catch on that anyone opting out feels that they can't compete on the issues and amplify their lackluster message in order to get greater name recognition.
-
Fair enough. Let's go with the understanding that you are completely against this and see where we can get to past that. In reality, you are against it but let's say for discussion's sake that you are willing to find some mutual ground where it would still irk the crap out of you but you could live with it happening if (X). Ok?
1st and formost is a recognition of the power such a policy of completely publically financed capaigns gives the media. With their 1st amendment protection, they're allowed to editorialize and skew their questions & reporting in any direction they chose, as it relates to candidates and theor platforms.
Can we get that recognition to start? Then we can start to move from there
-
1st and formost is a recognition of the power such a policy of completely publically financed capaigns gives the media. With their 1st amendment protection, they're allowed to editorialize and skew their questions & reporting in any direction they chose, as it relates to candidates and theor platforms.
Can we get that recognition to start? Then we can start to move from there
Oh aye, absolutely.
If then we agree on that point and are then willing to look at a possibility we can each live with, how then shall we combat the press' undue influence?
-
Don't let this die.
-
The undue influence of the press?
The sorces of our information will be the government , the canadates and the press , the press should be a many headed beast with each head in competition for its food . The many headed press is an ugly beast but the alternative is a tame press or takeing the govbernment and the canadates word for what they say.
The Press should be actively searching for canadates to push on every side of every race.
-
One of our concerns with this idea is that it could potentially give the "media" too much influence over which candidates get "news" coverage and positive spin. It could potentially be given too much influence over what information is highlighted on each candidate.
Just a question, would this then be a case where a scaled down, ultra-specific version of the "Fairness Doctrine" could be beneficial?
-
Don't let this die.
I've been away, and just got home. Now I have to eat dinner, take a shower, and watch "House". THEN I can get back to this. K? 8)
-
I think if we are discussing publicly financing elections, we should probably define what elections we would finance.
We currently finance presidential elections, would we extend that to the primaries?
Would there be a minimum threshold a candidate would have to meet in order to qualify for funds?
Should we extend financing to Senatorial Campaigns?
or Congressional Seats?
How about State Governments?
or local governments?
At what point does the cost of a campaign become prohibitive?
What are those costs and what alternate means are there to achieve the same ends.
-
That's cool. I'm having to take something called "Notussin" as part of my sinus infection treatment and I'm nearly passing out at the machine so I won't reply tonight but it's kind of slow at work today, so I'll get back on it in the morrow.
-
I think if we are discussing publicly financing elections, we should probably define what elections we would finance.
My concern is that we might get bogged down in the specifics of plans for certain elections and lose sight of the overview of what plan would be livable for everyone. If we must define a certain election, I would like to qualify it as a governor's race such as the Arizona governor's election.
We currently finance presidential elections, would we extend that to the primaries?
Here too, I feel that this is putting the horse before the cart. That decision should be left till after we have a hypothetical system that is agreeable to everyone possible. We're still in a phase of trying to find out if there is even an agreeable system much less whether or not it would extend to primaries. I would love to see this go that far, but would you be ok with us holding off on that decision for now?
Would there be a minimum threshold a candidate would have to meet in order to qualify for funds?
In the hypothetical that I thumbnailed in my first reply to Sirs' there was. I had set it at an arbitrary number and didn't pay attention to how it would all add up. I said 50,000 signatures and $5 from each who signed and that comes to $250,000 but then I said that they would be given $180,000 for the whole election. I think the idea would be to make the qualifying amount less than the amount given by the state for the campaign. This, of course, would differ state to state. I may be wrong but I would hypothesize that a Rhode Island gubernatorial campaign would cost less than a New York state campaign.
Should we extend financing to Senatorial Campaigns?
or Congressional Seats?
How about State Governments?
or local governments?
I would be for it some kind of clean elections in every level of government. Is there some reason not to be for one of them specifically?
At what point does the cost of a campaign become prohibitive?
In my opinion, the state should set a limit; however, then we would definitely run afoul of the whole "restricting free speech in the form of money" situation again. Although, I suspect that the taxpayers of the state (keeping with the gubernatorial race example for our discussion) would eventually tire of candidates opting out and racing exorbitant sums of money which they, the taxpayers would then be beholden to match for the other candidates.
What are those costs and what alternate means are there to achieve the same ends.
What would you say they are?
-
If someone is really a great leader ,can't he round up some funding?
-
1st and formost is a recognition of the power such a policy of completely publically financed capaigns gives the media. With their 1st amendment protection, they're allowed to editorialize and skew their questions & reporting in any direction they choose, as it relates to candidates and their platforms. Can we get that recognition to start?
Oh aye, absolutely. If then we agree on that point and are then willing to look at a possibility we can each live with, how then shall we combat the press' undue influence?
This would be the core problem that needs to be solved before we (I) could start to hash out actual cornerstone ideas in what to accept towards publically financed elections.
So.....a new "Fairness Doctrine" specifc to the media? Some independent organization that's given some assemblence of authority, by 1st keeping track of the editorials and candidate questions the mainstream outlets produce, tabbing when they lean in 1 ideological direction, and obligating them to then lean the other way, or risk some form of pentalty, such as a fine, or something. This isn't preventing any news organization to come out against X candidate and their platform, simply requiring them to come up why they should also be against Y candidate & his/her platform.
Or do you have a better idea at how to curb unilateral influence
-
A civil servant (like me) could be given the job of determining what an even divison of media assets amounted to.
-
A civil servant (like me) could be given the job of determining what an even divison of media assets amounted to.
Ok, let's run with that. Let's say Plane has been given the position of Chief CMW; Campaign Media Watchdog. What would be your responsibilities? How would you determine when a news outlet or mainstream media source was overtly skewing their campaign coverage in 1 direction, and more importantly, how would you enforce "balance and fairness"? Would their be some sort of incentive provided to facilitate balance? Quota system, perhaps?
-
This would be the core problem that needs to be solved before we (I) could start to hash out actual cornerstone ideas in what to accept towards publically financed elections.
So.....a new "Fairness Doctrine" specifc to the media? Some independent organization that's given some assemblence of authority, by 1st keeping track of the editorials and candidate questions the mainstream outlets produce, tabbing when they lean in 1 ideological direction, and obligating them to then lean the other way, or risk some form of pentalty, such as a fine, or something. This isn't preventing any news organization to come out against X candidate and their platform, simply requiring them to come up why they should also be against Y candidate & his/her platform.
Or do you have a better idea at how to curb unilateral influence
I haven't really thought about it yet.
Before we run off and go with Plane's newly formed department, can we take a minute or three to more fully define the problem we envision possibly developing with the "media"?
If I understand you correctly, we're thinking that CBS could potentially (for whatever reason) focus on one candidate negatively and then the one they prefer (or the CEO prefers) is given more positive coverage thereby influencing the race for their guy. Right? And since the funding is the same for all candidates the losing end candidate would then have to burn up a good portion of his funding (limited or otherwise) to combat CBS' negative coverage. This would be an example of the media (represented in this example by CBS) having undue influence over the elections.
Or is it that we fear that the whole of the media might band together and "report" that candidate X is a no-good so and so and X would be unfairly challenged?
Would you mind giving me a real world example of what you're envisioning?
-
Would you mind giving me a real world example of what you're envisioning?
Evan Thomas of Newsweek claiming that MSM support for John Kerry was worth 15 points in the polls. That is a paraphrase but the gist of his statement.
-
I not as concerned with who finances elections as to why they cost so much.
And why people are willing to spend such vast sums of money to gain power.
Lobbyists don't sell ideals, they buy votes. If you ever want to clean up corruption you will have to close down the candy store.
-
Would you mind giving me a real world example of what you're envisioning?
Evan Thomas of Newsweek claiming that MSM support for John Kerry was worth 15 points in the polls. That is a paraphrase but the gist of his statement.
We need to look into how he arrived at that idea but the point would be making sure that the MSM's support doesn't carry any more weight than say my blog's or this forum's.
What if there were a campaign channel (ala CSPAN) with bi-weekly debates (for a certain amount of time before the election day, say, two months) (actual debates) and hour-long opportunities to present each candidate's positions each week? This way, people could watch the candidates for themselves and judge whether or not the "MSM" was being fair to the candidates and could choose to believe the "MSM" or not.
The object, in my mind, would be to get the candidates to the voters without any kind of filter or spinning before or after. If the voter wants to turn to a network and get what their talking heads are saying he or she can then do so. Could it turn out that if the candidates have access to more airtime during the campaigns with the new "campaign channel" that the networks would limit their campaign coverages since it would become economically unfeasible for them to pre-empt American Idol, LOST and CSI every other week to show more and more debates.
This wouldn't preclude them from having their own sponsored debates like they do already. What it would make them change though is how they decide who is to be involved with the debates. If someone has met the qualifying requirements to get the money then they would absolutely have to be involved in ANY debates and could not be excluded since they are not one of the big two or massively rich like Ross Perot.
Would that serve to combat the MSM influence?
-
What if there were a campaign channel (ala CSPAN) with bi-weekly debates (for a certain amount of time before the election day, say, two months) (actual debates) and hour-long opportunities to present each candidate's positions each week? This way, people could watch the candidates for themselves and judge whether or not the "MSM" was being fair to the candidates and could choose to believe the "MSM" or not.....Would that serve to combat the MSM influence?
Doesn't & won't work, since A; not all voters are watching or even get C-span, and B; does nothing to deal with the problem again of likely undue influence the MSM has on elections, candidates, and their platforms. THAT would have to be addressed 1st. THAT is the problem, as I see it, in this discussion. That and Bt's reference to lobbyiests. Everything else are mere symptoms, and treating the syptoms, such as a "Campaign channel" does nothing to address the problem
-
Doesn't & won't work, since A; not all voters are watching or even get C-span, and B; does nothing to deal with the problem again of likely undue influence the MSM has on elections, candidates, and their platforms. THAT would have to be addressed 1st. THAT is the problem, as I see it, in this discussion. That and Bt's reference to lobbyiests. Everything else are mere symptoms, and treating the syptoms, such as a "Campaign channel" does nothing to address the problem
Well, let's not throw our hands up and call it a day. Tell me what you would like to see and let's find a real world solution that we can both live with.
But wait, let me backtrack just a bit.
Are you comfortable with the way things are now?
Do you find it acceptable that there are only two parties and that the next election will cost somewhere in the area of a billion dollars?
Would you like to see money less influential in who wins?
-
We are stuck in the middle of a catch 22.
The only people who can do away with undue influence in DC ( ie responding to advantage seekers) are the very people who spend millions to get that undue influence.
The grassroots would be better served pushing for real reform than favored candidates. Because favored candidates are nothig mre than new bosses pushing aside the old boss.
And we do get fooled again.
Perot actually did lead a peoples ( in a non Mikey kind of way) revolution, too bad he was a nutcase. And that was without the internet.
Too bad folks like Kos are blowing golden opportunities.
-
It is too bad but, for me, it is not over. I still think that we as a nation can do what those we have chosen to lead us (and aren't leading us) will not do because they are only working in the system that exists.
We can refine the system we have where people can give all the money they want to campaigns but that can't be money that simply buys the election for the campaign that gets the most money (though that doesn't usually happen every time).
I think most of us would agree that we would prefer a number of qualified candidates making their cases based on their views and not who has given them the biggest check. Not everyone who gives candidates money expects that candidate to do their bidding for that money but A LOT do and they get their money's worth.
It just so happens that DailyKos has a post up about this today. Some guys wrote a book about how to fix it and it kind of makes sense in a way but it involves too much secrecy, I think.
I'm not condoning this plan, just posting it as part of the discussion. Let's discuss.
Is This The Answer On Campaign Finance?
by Adam B
Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 10:33:54 AM CST
Salon.com (remember them?) had a nice article yesterday on the Ackerman-Ayres plan for campaign finance reform that's a worthy-enough summary to merit sitting through the required ad.
Professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres, both at Yale Law School (not that I'll hold that against them), have written a full book on this proposal, but here's the two-minute summary. Step one, cut a hole in the box public-directed financing:
Under the new plan, anyone who registered to vote would receive $10 to donate to House candidates, $15 to Senate candidates and $25 to presidential candidates. They could make their pledges essentially any way they chose. They could fund long shots or front-runners, spend their wads in the primary or the general election, in their home state or across the nation. They could split their allotments among dozens of contenders or just choose one Senate candidate, one House candidate and one presidential candidate. They could not cheat and spend the money on dinner. The $50 would be issued as a kind of electronic voucher that would expire on Election Day, and Ackerman and Ayres suggest that people could register their donations using the Web, ATM machines or even their electronic food stamp cards.
At fifty dollars per 2004 voter, that would be $6 billion in public financing available for candidates. In comparison, all federal candidates -- House, the Senate and POTUS -- spent a combined $4 billion in 2004.
Step two, and this is the beauty of the plan, is that they want to decouple the act of giving to politicians from the identity of the giver, and make political contributions anonymous:
You could still make additional private contributions. Indeed, the professors call for raising significantly the current contribution limit of $2,300 per donor per candidate. ...
Imagine that you are a politically connected Hollywood producer, and Hillary Clinton calls you up and asks you for $50,000. What do you do? In truth, you'd rather give to Barack Obama, whom you consider more electable, but you don't want Clinton to know that. After all, what if she wins? Then you'll never see the inside of the Lincoln Bedroom. So you tell Clinton that you're definitely on her side. Fortunately, under the Ackerman-Ayres plan, you'll make your check out to the Federal Election Commission, not Clinton. The FEC will wait five days before adding your money to Clinton's account. In those five days, you could contact the FEC and redirect the money to Obama if you chose. And regardless of which candidate ultimately gets the money, its origin will be masked. The FEC will distribute the cash to the candidate's account anonymously, in pieces, over several days, using a secret algorithm to vary the pattern by which it deposits the money. So even though you promised the New York senator your support, she'll have no way of knowing whether you really went through with it. You could send your money to Obama and Clinton would have no way of knowing whose side you were actually on.
In other words, if this works, politicians will never know who wrote the big checks.
You'll want to read the whole article to see how independent expenditures become a factor, among other complexities, but I think it's an intriguing read. One question I've had with this plan is what this does to fundraising events -- if wealthy contributors can no longer buy access to wine and cheese functions with large checks (since you can't verify that they were given), then what can campaigns offer as inducement to write the large checks, other than "this candidate believes the right things"? If this means fewer fundraising events, will candidates spend more time with ordinary voters? I'm sure you'll have your own questions.
Folks looking to explode the status quo ought to give this some careful consideration. Let's talk.
-
Way too much secrecy.
And again why should it cost 6 billion to hold an election, and why is it worth that kind of money.
Public financing just maintains the status quo.
Maybe as part of FCC licensing, a chunk of free air time should be slotted to legitimate candidates
-
Before we run off and go with Plane's newly formed department, can we take a minute or three to more fully define the problem we envision possibly developing with the "media"?
If I understand you correctly, we're thinking that CBS could potentially (for whatever reason) focus on one candidate negatively and then the one they prefer (or the CEO prefers) is given more positive coverage thereby influencing the race for their guy. Right?
Right
And since the funding is the same for all candidates the losing end candidate would then have to burn up a good portion of his funding (limited or otherwise) to combat CBS' negative coverage. This would be an example of the media (represented in this example by CBS) having undue influence over the elections.
Kinda. The core problem is 2fold, the increased revenues he's allotted to have to deal with BOTH his opponent and the media, and the fact that the media has such a huge audience, that far outweighs any notion of simply providing a "campaign channel"
Or is it that we fear that the whole of the media might band together and "report" that candidate X is a no-good so and so and X would be unfairly challenged?
No, not really. Again, I'm not of the mindset that news organizations' CEO's and publishers all have each other on speed dial to check on what they can do together to screw candidate X
Would you mind giving me a real world example of what you're envisioning?
Bt gave you one, but basically it happens every day of the week, and that much more during election times
-
[
Or is it that we fear that the whole of the media might band together and "report" that candidate X is a no-good so and so and X would be unfairly challenged?
Would you mind giving me a real world example of what you're envisioning?
Dan Rather
-
Doesn't & won't work, since A; not all voters are watching or even get C-span, and B; does nothing to deal with the problem again of likely undue influence the MSM has on elections, candidates, and their platforms. THAT would have to be addressed 1st. THAT is the problem, as I see it, in this discussion. That and Bt's reference to lobbyiests. Everything else are mere symptoms, and treating the syptoms, such as a "Campaign channel" does nothing to address the problem
Well, let's not throw our hands up and call it a day. Tell me what you would like to see and let's find a real world solution that we can both live with.
I've already proferred a couple of ideas. Plane's even volunteered to head up some media watch committee. We simply haven't decided what powers he'd have yet, and how he'd apply his findings
But wait, let me backtrack just a bit. Are you comfortable with the way things are now?
No. Far too much restriction, via the current Incumbant Protection Act, also known as McCain-Feingold. Not near enough disclosure of who's getting what from whom, and how much
Do you find it acceptable that there are only two parties and that the next election will cost somewhere in the area of a billion dollars?
Not terribly
Would you like to see money less influential in who wins?
Not at the cost of free speech & the 1st amendment
-
I've already proferred a couple of ideas. Plane's even volunteered to head up some media watch committee. We simply haven't decided what powers he'd have yet, and how he'd apply his findings
Only if it represents a promotion, and some influence on the process.
-
I've already proferred a couple of ideas. Plane's even volunteered to head up some media watch committee. We simply haven't decided what powers he'd have yet, and how he'd apply his findings
Only if it represents a promotion, and some influence on the process.
But of course 8)
-
A civil servant (like me) could be given the job of determining what an even divison of media assets amounted to.
Ok, let's run with that. Let's say Plane has been given the position of Chief CMW; Campaign Media Watchdog. What would be your responsibilities? How would you determine when a news outlet or mainstream media source was overtly skewing their campaign coverage in 1 direction, and more importantly, how would you enforce "balance and fairness"? Would their be some sort of incentive provided to facilitate balance? Quota system, perhaps?
As a good civil servant my first cocnern would be to CYA.
Secondly to please my higher ups , advanceing my carreer.
-
I think someone's handle who starts with a Br, has "thrown their hands up and called it a day", on this topic ;)
-
A civil servant (like me) could be given the job of determining what an even division of media assets amounted to.
OK, let's run with that. Let's say Plane has been given the position of Chief CMW; Campaign Media Watchdog. What would be your responsibilities? How would you determine when a news outlet or mainstream media source was overtly skewing their campaign coverage in 1 direction, and more importantly, how would you enforce "balance and fairness"? Would their be some sort of incentive provided to facilitate balance? Quota system, perhaps?
As a good civil servant my first cocnern would be to CYA.
Secondly to please my higher ups , advancing my career.
I think someone's handle who starts with a Br, has "thrown their hands up and called it a day", on this topic ;)
Yes ,but I mean it,
a good civil servant follows the rules , as nearly as he can he must know the letter of the law and apply it with little variance.
An administrator who uses his discretion to the point at which he is making up his own rules within his fief is a bad civil servant .
Unfortunately this is not rare and great power to make law is invested in people most of us hardly know.
New rules, new agencys , ought to be created with caution for this reason , the very next administration may be opposite to your idea of progress and can appoint a little Napoleon.
-
I think someone's handle who starts with a Br, has "thrown their hands up and called it a day", on this topic ;)
Yes ,but I mean it, a good civil servant follows the rules , as nearly as he can he must know the letter of the law and apply it with little variance. An administrator who uses his discretion to the point at which he is making up his own rules within his fief is a bad civil servant . Unfortunately this is not rare and great power to make law is invested in people most of us hardly know.
New rules, new agencys , ought to be created with caution for this reason , the very next administration may be opposite to your idea of progress and can appoint a little Napoleon.
Oh aboslutely. Honestly, I don't think anything could be done to address the core problem as I see it, leading to the only other viable alternative, complete 100% disclosure of who gets how much and from whom. Press can continue with their 1st amendment bias, but at least the people, via the internet & other media outlets, can track if there's any obvious quid-pro-quo going on, and vote them sorry arses right out
-
I think someone's handle who starts with a Br, has "thrown their hands up and called it a day", on this topic ;)
On the other hand , I do not want to quash other discussion just becuse I think that the government would do a bad job of regulateing its own feeding , it might still be worthwhile to figure out what the ideal situation would be before figureing out how to acheve it , or prevent its misuse.
-
I think someone's handle who starts with a Br, has "thrown their hands up and called it a day", on this topic ;)
Yes ,but I mean it, a good civil servant follows the rules , as nearly as he can he must know the letter of the law and apply it with little variance. An administrator who uses his discretion to the point at which he is making up his own rules within his fief is a bad civil servant . Unfortunately this is not rare and great power to make law is invested in people most of us hardly know.
New rules, new agencys , ought to be created with caution for this reason , the very next administration may be opposite to your idea of progress and can appoint a little Napoleon.
Oh aboslutely. Honestly, I don't think anything could be done to address the core problem as I see it, leading to the only other viable alternative, complete 100% disclosure of who gets how much and from whom. Press can continue with their 1st amendment bias, but at least the people, via the internet & other media outlets, can track if their's any obvious quid-pro-quo going on, and vote them sorry arses right out
[/quote]
The internet is increaseingly pervaseive, is it dependable enough to produce the openess that we all seem to want?