Skip to main content

View Diary: Call Time (135 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And one wonders why public financing (14+ / 0-)

    never really makes it into our national discourse.

    I work with B2B PAC, and all views and opinions in this account are my own.

    by slinkerwink on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 08:33:42 AM PST

    •  I would also like to see (4+ / 0-)

      no more anonymous money raised by outside groups (even more important than public funding), no entity who can't vote can donate (no corporations, unions, or foreign entities).

      -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

      by dopper0189 on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 08:37:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tookish, ctsteve, dopper0189

        Let's limit donations to individuals and then limit amounts allowed. Politicians really can run campaigns on a lot less money--they really don't need a TV ad every 15 minutes--but with companies and organizations able to buy influence, the costs escalate. When campaigns are financed by individuals, campaigns will be less expensive and campaign finance will be more democratic. I think politicians would be more inclined to represent the will of the people, and less costly campaigns would allow more independent candidates--independent in thinking and independent of a political party.

        •  And make contributions tax credits (0+ / 0-)

          That would make the campaigns "publicly financed" without a lot of paperwork. The candidate would only have to issue a receipt for the taxpayer to file with their tax forms. Plus make the tax credit contributions only apply to candidates whom actually directly represents you. (If you contribute to a candidate outside of your representative area, the contribution would not be tax creditable.) Individual limits would still be imposed - probably with a tax credit limit with a higher absolute limit.

          Citizens would give more if they could justify it financially.

          Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely - Lord Acton

          by Shishkabugs on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 04:07:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  the people involved in the system described above (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ctsteve, happymisanthropy, ArthurPoet

      are personally invested in it.  They will not allow it.

      "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau

      by James Allen on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 08:39:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  indeed neither party wants the gravy train to end (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tookish, ctsteve, jsmagid

      Sadly, though, getting the money out of the electoral system is the vitally necessary first step--we will never make real progress on any other issue until the money factor is removed from politics.

      And neither party wants to remove it.

      •  Campaigning has becoming an industry- (0+ / 0-)

        We passed the billion dollar electoral cycle spending threshold some time back. This multibillion dollar industry now demands to be fed... more billions. That's why there's an army of consultants, etc. in both parties that will fight campaign finance reform.

    •  I started thinking about penning a diary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink, lawman

      that most likely would have ended up with the conclusion that securing public financing should be the one and only goal of every single progressive political organization.

      If we were to look at each and every policy goal we have and determine what is the biggest barrier to achieving that goal I expect it would come down to defeating entrenched interests who pay for what gets through Congress.

      My #1 policy goal is to restore a progressive tax structure (which includes both wages and investment income). The biggest barrier to increasing taxes on the top 1%? The political power of the top 1%. QED

      Democracy is a contact sport...

      by jsmagid on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 01:43:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, one does wonder. (0+ / 0-)

      After all, telemarketing isn't what anyone gets into politics to do. The vast majority of candidates hate this themselves; it's tedious and demeaning.

      So why wouldn't officeholders jump at the chance to change the system to something that lets them put down the phone and focus on the more meaningful parts of the job? It baffles me that the people most afflicted by this allow it to continue.

      Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

      by lawman on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 10:51:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site