A new campaign finance idea - I like it.

[SusanCalvin]

Rep. John Sarbanes (not *that* Sarbanes - that's his father), D-Maryland.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2015/ten_miles_square/the_monthly_interview_john_sar055931.php?page=all

I wasn't able to get all the details into four paragraphs, although I tried my best - please, go read the whole thing!

Among other things, he tells the story (not excerpted here) of how he tried something similar on his own hook two cycles ago, and how that worked out.

The bill is designed to shift the attention of candidates away from big money and toward everyday citizens and small donors. In order to do that, you have to be able to generate enough funding from small donors that it’s actually worthwhile for a candidate to turn away from PACs, big-money donors, and special interests.

Right now the small donor cannot be heard by the candidate. The signal is not strong enough. In fact, if you looked at a map of the United States, you would see coverage coming out of the Manhattans of the world and the Marin Counties of the world, but there would be whole parts of the country that would be completely dark, which is where a lot of America lives but can’t be heard. Give them a tax credit, bring a six-to-one match of public dollars in behind it, and now when they call the candidate and say, “Can you hear me?” the candidate says, “Not only can I hear you, stay where you are and I’ll be there in the next twenty minutes.”

It’s not about limiting speech. It’s about adding speech for people who don’t have it. The limiting, if it’s done, is done voluntarily by a candidate in order to qualify for the public funding option, but nothing is being imposed on anybody. A candidate can choose to raise money in the current system. We give them an option of someplace else to turn.

But there’s no overall expenditure cap for the candidate. You can still continue to raise private dollars as long as you stay under the $1,000-per-donor limit. In that respect it’s different from a lot of the state and local analogs to this bill, which limit your expenditures if you get public financing. We realize that if we imposed that kind of regime on members of Congress, none of them would participate, because if you have the prospect of outside money coming at you, you can’t tie your hands with an expenditure cap.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Let's see, who would be devastated and who would have company ?

[madokie]

2. Sounds like its

right down Bernie's alley.

[SusanCalvin]

3. Self kick....

I think this is an interesting idea. Maybe I posted it at a bad time....?

[truedelphi]

4. This is very interesting.

I wish your OP was getting much more exposure.

[SusanCalvin]

5. Thanks - me too. nt

[flying rabbit]

6. K&R nt

[muktiman]

7. Another campaign finance reform proposal

When we talk about election reform and publicly funded elections, I have an idea that has been echoing around in my head for a few years now, so let me just post it hear and see the response it might get.

First a question: With all the money collected for elections, where does most of it go?

Answer: To media buys, right? Mostly for TeeVee Ads, newspaper, magazine and now internet ads too.

So, most of the ridicules amount of money goes to whom? Why to the oligarchs, who else.

My proposal is this: lets us have free media for all serious candidates for say a period of 3 or 4 months before any election; free TeeVee spots, free newspaper and magazine and internet ads.

And for that matter, why not also include travel for the candidate and say, 2 or 3 staff members for the same election period.

Most of us here are aware of the oligarchs hold on democracy, and now they will have the opportunity to do their patriotic duty and support the people, the people from whom their obscene wealth is extracted.

What would Bernie say?

I leave it to others to focus on the application. Maybe the political ads would not have to be just 30 second smears or double talk. Maybe a candidate could take the time to explain their nuanced positions on the critical issues of our day. I believe my idea would make the obscene contributions from the 1% irrelevant. AND IT WON'T COST THE GOVERNMENT ANYTHING!

Just an idea, but I don’t think you will hear about this on the nightly news any time soon.

[muktiman]

8. and another thing

Who owns the airwaves? Who leases the airwaves from we the people?

And who regulates interstate commerce?

just saying.

[SusanCalvin]

9. Completely agree, have thought so for years.

You might consider making this an OP.

[muktiman]

10. From a newbie

Hi SusanCalvin. thanks for the encouragement, my question is: what is an OP? and how do i make one?

Sounds like maybe an "Opinion Piece".

i was not allowed to post a separate thread b/c i have not posted much here before, more lurking and reading others posts. But this issue just gets me so worked up, trying to find more ways to pay more money to the oligarchs with tax breaks and such, it just doesn't make sense to me. The airwaves belong to us! We practically give them over to the wealthy for basically a song, and then they get to make so much money off our election process. Advertising costs go during an election b/c of supply and demand.

It reminds me of student loans and grants which bid up the price of an education, but that's another story. Here we bid up the price of advertising during an election cycle just to give the ones with already too much money, more; just because they run the media. Propaganda press: it makes me sick.

please enlighten how we can get this out.

i think it is pretty simple and I'm pretty sure the media wouldn't report on it.

Your advice.

muktiman

[SusanCalvin]

11. OP is "original post."

I don't remember exactly, but I think you can do that after 10 replies. The system will tell you.

It's really hard to get attention to election reform here, at least at this time.

The ER forum used to be quite active, with a lengthy daily news thread (I'll find a link to one), but that died off many years ago.

[SusanCalvin]

12. Here's what I'm talking about - when ER was active.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x503371

[SaveTheMackerel]

13. The strong will find a way to dominate what is free.

If TV is free, 100's more people will apply. Who chooses who gets to use it?

As for tax payer funded campaigns:
The big players will find a way to win that game too. Candidates first must qualify for the public funds. The big players will hire signature collectors to go get them to the top of the list to get the funds.


We can also limit all donation sizes to $1000. That would be good, but not enforceable.

A problem with limiting contribution sizes is the contributers can't stay anonymous. If your employer is of the other party, you will think twice before contributing.

[SusanCalvin]

14. Contribution sizes are already limited, at least for direct contributions, not SuperPACs.

I haven't reread my original post, but thanks for being interested. I see from your profile that you don't trust electronic voting either.