A friend of mine once joked that politicians wear outfits like a race car driver, showing who financially supports them and by how much by the size of their patches. I'm not sure it would work, but it would be nice if all the politicians were put on the same playing field. Maybe spending limits should be put in place (although their constituents would probably pick up where they left off and continue the advertisements). My reasoning: How can the wealthiest candidates really speak for those in the middle and lowest income levels, unless they grew up in that environment? I bet most of them never went without insurance, paid their way through college, or enlisted in the military. What are your thoughts for improving campaign finance?
I would seriously limit campaign spending, drive all presidential funding into government financed, limit the length of elections. I think the British national campaign is at most a couple of months. I would cut out all "interest group spending". Why? It distorts campaigns. It also is so expensive as to make it prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest and most interested special interest groups of all kinds. I think the Supreme Court should revisit the issue. I doubt if this Court would change things but I don't see political advertising as "speech" let alone "free speech". And multi million dollar politically oriented campaigns are anything but free. I'd pull the money out of all lobbying efforts at Congress. Then I'd push for all states to set up similar rulings for state elections. A little description of campaign funding......
That would only help the wealthiest political candidates, incumbents, and constituents. The winning politicians will almost always be those with the biggest pocket books. Do you really want the biggest companies weathliest people dictating how you live, what condition your environment is in, and what jobs you can get (instead of having them shipped overseas)? What about the other 75% of the population that are not very wealthy?
That pretty much sums up my thinking too. It would be fair to all parties and their constituents. It just may not be liked by those that were benefiting from the current/old rules, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.
Lorien: The current system pollutes discussion. More relevantly it is so outrageously expensive that it has created outlandish ties between major contributors and their beneficiaries. It creates bad government, as large contributors control the law making process. I love free speech. Establish limits on spending for all federal government positions; president, senators, congresspeople. Eliminate large money from all sources into these campaigns. Cut out the influence of cash. Shorten the political races. This year is far out of line with all elections in the past. Previous elections were incredibly longer than those in Great Britain, by example. Create new forums for extensive political debate and interaction. Force the people who are running to rely more on their direct commentary and less on ads. The more they speak....the more free speech. The less ads....the less propaganda type of comments. Underwrite the whole thing through govt spending. That would break the links between monied sources and people in elective office. Now frankly, I'd like to see a non-traditional, non federal group run for office this election. I'd like to see people like Blumenthal and the Governator run. Blumenthal of course could self fund his effort at being elected. Blumenthal and the governator are effectively crossing party lines to try and actually attack existing problems with effective real solutions. They are being somewhat successful in crafting solutions because they are not governing by pure partisanship alone--which is where Washington always seems to veer. So my suggestion would not provide for that. Have someone come up with a creative suggestion for allowing candidates like those guys to come forward. Allow them to dip into federal funding as with major candidates from the 2 parties. How much should the funding be? I don't have a number in mind--but look at this way. Take the totals raised by candidates for federal office over the last few elections. Adjust all monies raised for inflation. Average it out over that period and also adjust it for monies to federal elections and state elections. Then cut it by 1/2 or 1/3 or some other fraction. Shorten all elections. Force the candidates into more direct debates. Possibly increase the number of debates but decrease the number of people per debate. For instance on the Republican side-> Huckabee, Romney, Paul, Tancredo one debate; next debate; Giulani, McCain, Tancredo, someone else. Force them to do more follow up and direct back and forth between fewer people. Give them each more time. Have them debate different groups at different times. Do the same with the Democrats. The main goal should be to pull the money that currently distorts politics out of the elections. I think that would be money well spent.
I agree with what you have to say, especially You really hit the nail on the head! Earl for President!
I think that the media support is what clinches it. Completely unbiased media would be perfect but will never ever happen. Let us take our friends at FOCKS News for example. Most of them will be cheerleading for the people that their controlled bosses tell them to. I think that the money can only count to a certain extent because if you are not getting the MSM exposure many peeps will never really know who you are. Take Ron Paul for example, easily talking the most sense from all of the muppets yet he is ridiculed on FOCKS because they cannot possibly allow the man to become President because he doesn't fit the Illuminati agenda.
That's a very good point. Those that aren't already a famous movie star or former astronaut do have a disadvantage. Still, I'd like to take money out of the equation or atleast lessen its influence. It would be more fair to all of the constituents.
AGS: A couple of questions: Aren't British national election periods much shorter than past American elections and way way shorter than this election? How are they funded, privately or publicly, or both? Do you feel you get adequate information about the candidates if you choose to pay attention? How do the candidates get their points and perspectives across to the public?
It can be 5 years between an election Earl but can be called at any time by the PM with permission of the Queen. Which is where Gordon Brown could be heading to very soon, although he may choose not to as I have just heard the news that the Torys (Conservatives) have drawn close to them after Camerons speech at the Tory Party Conference. One hour speech completely unscripted that was actually very good, for a pompous public schoolboy born with a silver spoon up his arse. Funding comes from both angles sir, I personally received a whole heap of junk from my local Conservative (Tory) candidate this morning. And I will receive an equal amount of paraphernalia from the Liberal Democrat party very soon because the area I live in is very tight between Conservative and Liberal Democrat. Labour are in the absolute minority in my area so I doubt I'll see anything from them. Candidates get their points over usually via the media and through the post. Sometimes they might even go door-to-door for support. My area is currently held by the Lib Dems but I think that it may go to Conservative if Brown calls the snap (election.) It is going to be very tight. 2005 was 43,621 votes 18,122 to the Liberal Democrats and 15,819 for the Conservatives.
Thanks AGS: My first question was once an election is called....how long is the election period. Right now the presidential election is on this incredibly long 2 year basis....with so much going on and so much fund raising going on...so many months before an actual primary. Once a British election is called how long during that period before the election?
I didn't realize the royalty still has much of a level of influence or control. Huh! One of the other things that's just plain annoying are all the attack ads between the candidates and the various special interest groups. I do suspect that if we did finance reform and limited the money earned, by whomever, and did all that Earl suggested (which I think is a good idea), the candidates would no longer be doing as much of the advertising. Unfortunately, I see their special interest groups just picking up where the candidates left off and doing their own ads.
I'd propose cutting out the special interest cr@p from any side. If that doesn't work I'd work to limit it. If that doesn't work I'd set up a formula so that any special interest cr@p has to also register in some form describing what candidate it is attacking or supporting. If special interest group A is supporting Joe Schmoe---than for every dollar special interest group A spends....Joe Schmoe has that much less to spend. Some kind of formula like that. That would be interesting. MoveOn attacks the Republican candidate and the Democrat has that much less to spend. Also it creates a bones tie in between the interest group and the candidates. The Swift Boaters attack Kerry...Bush has that much less to spend. In fact I'd love to see that....all within smaller limits on total campaign spending. That last suggestion would force all so called "independant groups" that want to go out there and muddy up the air waves to create a clear connection with whatever candidate they are trying to help. It would create a clear connection of accountability with all the commentary that goes out there. That would be fun to watch.
I think it is three weeks mate, it's around that time. We don't drag it out for two years lol. It is announced, the Candidates are already in place and it's off to the polling station. There is a lot of voter apathy here though with turnout around 60% of people eligible to vote actually voting. It was 61% in 2005 and 59% in 2001.
3 weeks. okay that is totally different. I guess that means the candidates must already be the various heads of the parties or something like that. So different question? How would a new guy, or relatively unknown guy like Ron Paul ever get a shot at running in the PM election when one would be called? Or is it impossible?
Candidates are already in place mate, it is the constituent for each area from each party. A new guy, or relatively unknown guy would first need to get a seat in Parliament before even being considered for leader of the party. Cameron (leader of the opposition) was a relatively unknown and he got the call. The Conservative party had tried with a couple of older heads (Michael Howard in 2005 and William Hague in 2001) and both got their arses utterly kicked by Blairs Labour Party. My thoughts are that they are looking at Cameron as someone that might appeal to the more younger voters. The problem being that Cameron enjoyed an upbringing and education that hardly anyone in the United Kingdom would have been priviliged to. He's a bit of a fake, a bit like Giuliani.
I was really asking all that because I understood the British election cycle was very short term. (Once the election has been announced) and if that was a model for a less expensive American system...that could pull out all the cash. The systems are way different.