Publicly financed elections?

[Brassmask]

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?

[BT]

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.

[BT]

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.

[Brassmask]

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?

[sirs]

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

[Brassmask]

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?

[BT]

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.

[Brassmask]

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.

[BT]

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

[sirs]

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

[Plane]

[
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

[sirs]

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

[Plane]

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.

[sirs]

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     

[Plane]

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.