Skip to main content

View Diary: The Fair Elections Now Act (99 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  and public financing does not work (0+ / 0-)

    All the leading Presidential candidates in both parties have announced they are foregoing public financing because of the limits.  Additionally, people do not like it.  Again, I bring your attention to how few people sign off on the $3 check off.  We should drop that farce all together.

    We have term limits for President, why not everything else.  Let's keep in mind Reagan would have easily won a third term were it not for term limits, and the consequenses would have been?....

    Also, the current system (campaign finance rules, free speech restrictions of McCain/Feingold, and Gerrymandering) is heavily weighted towards incumbents whose re-election rates are above 95%.  So yes, while elections are term limts in theory, in practice the system is heavily weighted in favor of incumbents.

    Couple that with the Beltway virus that seems to infect people who stay in Washington too long and I think we have a strong argument for forcing them out and bringing in new blood.  The farther politicians get from living the life of everyday common people the less they can relate and less concerned they are.  Fact.

    Also, money is speech in campaigns.  Let's not kid ourselves.  Why should it be restricted?  Let's just disclose it and that way everybody will know where it comes from and and can make it an issue if you don't like its providence.

    I guess we won't agree on this, but I think we need less regulations.  What we need is more freedom and more ideas being thrown into the pot.

    •  couple of responses (0+ / 0-)

      On the participation rates on the tax form check off:

      Taxpayers make tax decisions on April 15. Voters make political decisions on the second Tuesday in November. Those days are six months apart, and in April it is perhaps the day when we're the least charitable toward our government. What other program should we fund as a check off? Foreign aid to Africa? Education? Roads? War in Iraq? It's not a referendum. That's Mitch McConnell's argument.

      On participation in the Presidential system:

      It's broken. The stable of viable candidates running right now can't compete in it. And, other candidates who have a vision to offer can't compete at all. It's screwed up and needs to be overhauled, not thrown out.

      We may agree to disagree, but I want to make sure at least some of your questions or concerns got answered.

    •  It's not the same as the current system (0+ / 0-)

      The presidential system is a matching fund system, which means candidates still have to solicit money from donors to get the matching funds. Under Fair Elections, candidates accept NO outside money.

      As for the free-speech issue, participation is entirely VOLUNTARY, so no one is having their free-speech rights taken away.

      For those who argue that we just need more disclosure, we've had that for years. Until the newspapers agree to post a box next to every political story showing where the subjects of the story got their money, most people are not going to be aware of where the money is coming from.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site