Many feel that the developers are trying to buy seats on City Council. The Campaign Finance Reports indicate that almost all of their money is coming from that narrow segment of the community. It has been pointed out that these people stand to gain financially from having their preferred candidates on City Council.
How do you feel about campaign finance reform?
A) Money influencing politics is the American way, it happens at every level of government;
B) It may be a good idea in some places but we do not need it here;
C) Allowing undue influence of money gives undue power to the rich, it takes democracy away from average Americans.
Many cities such as Tucson, and Austin have enacted voluntary public financing of campaigns. In these situations candidates must raise a certain amount of money with a cap on the size of contributions. This shows viability. At that point they can opt into the public financing where by the city has established high quality means of distributing campaign information such as public forums. These are only available to those who agree to the restrictions on spending, size of donation, etc. In these cities it is very rare for anyone to opt out of the system. In Austin, where they have an informed and savvy electorate they publish the names of those who do and do not participate. Not only does this reduce the cost of running for office, thereby making it a consideration for a wider cross section of the community, it also tends to increase the quality of election information available. Fewer yard signs and sound bites.
Another thing that can be done is to make it illegal to raise money within three weeks of the election. This means that all campaign finance information is available at the time of the election. As it is now, we can expect candidates with the reputation for being bought to have their last campaign finance reports show much more money, because this report comes out after the election. Before the last period they are taking much of their money in pledges, which are not reported.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Campaign Finance Reform
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I, personally, believe in freedon of speach. I also think that people can spend their money however they want. Also, my vote is not for sale.
Is yours???
It is sad but true that a well financed campaign gets a lot of votes. It is a big sales job. Money will get your name out there. It will buy more signs. It will put more of a particular candidate's advocates voices in the media.
No. We should not institute campaign finance reform. As long as we remain lazy; as long as we continue to abdicate our personal responsibility to participate in the process we deserve the system that we have.
I also believe in freedom of speech. I'm not sure what that has to do with the question at hand though.
I think the public deserves to know where the money is coming from before and after an election. I would like to see less lobbyist and more individual involvement. Less sound bites and more thoughtful discussion.
I think any changes which we can make that are proven or are likely to promote these things would be good.
You don't see the connection between money and speach? I have a lot more money than any of the candidates' campaign funds but nobody is voting for me. The money is used to purchase media access. That access is in the form of campaign ads, signs, printed materials; in short SPEACH. If you have more money you have more access. That is where the advantage comes from.
I am 100% in favor of full disclosure of where the money comes from.
Finance reform will not improve the quality of political rhetoric.
No I don't see any connection between advertising and free speech. Free speech is the ability to say what you think even if it is a controversial idea. Advertising is selling a product.
I don't believe our founding fathers intended for politicians to sell themselves like consumer goods when they wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I do not grant companies the right to call me at all hours of the day or night in order to sell me product and I do not consider that an infringement on their freedom of speech either.
Advertising only serves the purpose
of dumbing down the democratic process and that is what most of the money goes towards.
I do think you are correct that campaign reform does very little or nothing to correct this problem. If it where up to me I would put an end to political advertising all together.
This would have the added benefit of beautifying or neighborhoods by removing all of those wasteful and ugly signs.
Political speach is not comercial speach and it is protected.
You simply want to silence the speach you do not agree with.
Chris, I agree with most of your views. I too went from bored to disgusted with the local political rhetoric some time ago. But silencing them so that we can hear a voice we would rather hear also gives them the right to silence us.
Money in the electoral system means rich people and corporations have more access to free speech than the rest of us. They can, in fact, drowned out the voice of the people. Campaign finance reform usually results in more centralized locations for campaign information and it also usually results in more in depth information rather than sound bites and yard signs.
Anon, if you went from Bored to disgusted, what would have gotten you engaged?
You should not presume you know what I think -That is extremely arrogant and you are not smart enough. Up till now I had some respect for what you are saying.
You are completely wrong. The fact of the matter is that I welcome diverse opinion and open discussion in all matters. I actually think Dictson makes many valid points.
A commercial is not a speech, a name on a sign is also not a speech. Our founding fathers intended for us to be able to criticize authority without persecution. Not to try to brain wash our fellow citizens by name recognition.
I have read Dictson's website. He had plenty of opportunity to say anything he wanted there. I also think debates are needed as well as newspaper articles on the various candidates positions.
There are plenty of ways to exercise real freedom of speech without resorting to advertising.
Chris,
I presume that your posts reflect your thoughts.
The Attorney General does indeed say that yard signs are protected as political speech. The City of College Station has certainly questioned the political yard signs as possible violations of their sign ordinance. Whether you agree or not they are speech and they are protected. It is a question of law and not of your opinion.
The law is opinion. It reflects the societies views at any given time.
While I understand that it is currently a legal practice that does not mean that it always will be and it doesn't mean that it is right.
It was not so long ago that telemarketing could not be stopped.
As I said at the beginning "If it where up to me..." -This is just my view. It certainly does not mean that I am against "freedom of speech" I just happen to have a different interpretation of what constitutes "speech" than you do.
Your statement that: "You simply want to silence the speach you do not agree with." and your implications that you believe in "freedom of speech" and others don't is offensive. I get tired of your types attempts to make anyone who doesn't agree with you into a communist.
If you think political advertising is great and the election system is perfect as is that is your right but if you try to tell me that I am un-American because I think we need a little more "people" in our government for the people and a little less thoughtless advertising than you can expect an argument.
Post a Comment