 |
 |
Baton Rouge Links |
 |
|
|
Last 10 Logins |
|
|
|  |
|
| LSU Tigers Baton Rouge Louisiana: Forums |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerU.com Forum Index -> The Debate Arena
| Printable Version |
 |
Author
|
Message |
View previous topic
:: View next topic |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
lsuhockey4
I'm a Newbie!
Joined: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 23
Points : 0
Status: Offline
|
 Posted:
Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:37 pm
Post subject: Campaign finances (split from social security reform) |
  |
|
*split from the social security thread because it is no longer a debate about social security reform. However this topic does have merit and I think it has brought out some good arguments so here it is. campaign finance. have fun.*-rwnugent
Your right changing the code won't happen. It won't happen because people keep electing the two corporate parties into office. When unelected unaccountable corporate CEO's have your parties by the balls, your candidates wouldn't dare take away any of those CEO's profits. Thats why the Green Party refuses to accept campaign contributions from corporations. Also because the Democrats and Republicans no longer have control over their own parties social security reform and anything else that benefits the good of the people will not happen.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
LEstay
All Around Nice Guy
Joined: Jun 09, 2004
Posts: 1064
Points : 900
Location: Houston, Tx
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:52 pm
Post subject: Re: ss |
  |
|
| lsuhockey4 wrote: | | ...When unelected unaccountable corporate CEO's have your parties by the balls, your candidates wouldn't dare take away any of those CEO's profits... |
1. CEOs are elected and accountable. The boards of directors (of which is elected by shareholders) of each company hire a CEO who is accountable to the board and shareholders. If he sucks, he's fired.
2. They're not the CEO's profits... they're the companies' profits.
Does the Green Party accept donations from any entity other than individuals? If so, that's the same as accepting donations from companies in my opinion. Any non-profit group has its own agenda, whether it be gun rights, abortion rights, or consumer rights. What's the difference?
As a future donor to political causes, I do want my politicians to do what I want. If I want my congressman to vote for social security reform, then I'll ask him to do so. If he does, then I can "thank" him by voting for him when he runs again and contributing to his campaign. If he doesn't, then I can vote for someone else and give the opposition my money.
|
____________
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
lsuhockey4
I'm a Newbie!
Joined: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 23
Points : 0
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Fri Feb 04, 2005 5:11 pm
Post subject: ss |
|
|
I should have specified. I was referring to CEO's being unaccountable to the people and unelected by the people. Because it is the CEO's who are making the policy in this country. Green candidates do not accept money except from individuals. You shouldn't have to hope that your congressman votes how you want him to. Its not his decision how to vote, it is yours. You elected him to represent you. His/Her yea or nay vote is nothing more than an extension of your yea or nay vote.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
LEstay
All Around Nice Guy
Joined: Jun 09, 2004
Posts: 1064
Points : 900
Location: Houston, Tx
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Fri Feb 04, 2005 5:16 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
There are many thousands of people in my congressional district, and it is impossible for my congressman to listen to each one. The problem is... congressmen have a conflict of either voting for what their constituency wants or what he believes is truly best for them. If he's done a good job, then I vote him back in. If not, I pick a better alternative.
|
____________
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
MrTrunks
Veteran Poster
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 643
Points : 120
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:37 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| LEstay wrote: | | There are many thousands of people in my congressional district, and it is impossible for my congressman to listen to each one. The problem is... congressmen have a conflict of either voting for what their constituency wants or what he believes is truly best for them. If he's done a good job, then I vote him back in. If not, I pick a better alternative. |
Correction: It is imposable for your congress man to talk to anyone. Well any one that is not going to contribute X number of dollars.
And LEstay let me explain to you how you plan to waste your money.
Lets solve for X
2003-2004 Total Receipts: $1,157,497, congressional session is near 150 days each year. That leaves about 430 days for Richard Baker to work on getting campaign contributions. That is about $2600 dollars a day (including Sundays and Holidays) that he need to raise.
Unless you plan to contribute more than $500 or so Mr. baker will be losing money to talk to you.
X = $500.00 really that’s not so bad.
So lets look at the source of the funds.
Source of Funds:
Individual contributions $331,468 (28.6%)
PAC contributions $822,121 (71.0%)
Candidate self-financing $0
Other $3,908 (0.3%)
PAC Contribution Breakdown
Business $777,006 (96.5%)
Labor $2,000 (0.2%)
Ideological/Single Issue $26,000 (3.2%)
If you are hoping that your contribution means something well, it would not. A clearly the majority of funding comes from Business/Pac funding. In fact in 2004, Backer had a little more than $200,000 left over. He is really only dependent on about one out of three private contributions. Making that number X actually closer to $1500.00.
But I know you are moving to Houston soon so lets look at Gene Green (D).
If you look at just the amount of money spent 300k on his election, it only looks like Mr. Green needs to get about $150 from you to make it work his while. But wait, it looks like Green only spent about 300k on his campaign, well he took in about 300k in business PAC funds. So it turns out that Mr. Green does not need any of your money.
How ironic is that.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Earl
Da' Man
Joined: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 672
Points : 102
Location: LA
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:24 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Campaign Financing reforms is a great and amazing idea, However it WILL NEVER happen. It's a hilarious predicament when you think about it. We pick the officials, they vote on what we believe. However, the unique thing about campaign finance reforms is that, they would never vote for something that would hurt their income: never, never. It's called self-interest, there is not solution within congress for this problem, it'd always be voted down. Lobbying and Campaign Finance are the most corrupting factors in politics. The only possible solution is to elect officials with integrity that would never sell out their morals or Values to a lobbist for Campaign Bribaries, but anyone can provide a facade, so its a problem without any solution, I find it useless to debate it, if there is no possible solution: I have seen no possible and/or plausible solution as of yet.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
MrTrunks
Veteran Poster
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 643
Points : 120
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:09 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| Earl wrote: | | Campaign Financing reforms is a great and amazing idea, However it WILL NEVER happen. ..... I find it useless to debate it, if there is no possible solution: I have seen no possible and/or plausible solution as of yet. |
What a wonderful defeatist attitude… Campaign Finance reform will never happen, just exactly what planet are you on, what country are you talking about. It has been happening for 100 years or so, do you think its going to stop now?
And now for your reading pleasure Mark Anthony Yost, Jr.’s Undergraduate Student at Towson University, history of Campaign finance reform, with references.
http://juntosociety.com/government/campaignfinance.htm
It seems as if we can not open a newspaper today without reading about campaign finance reform of one sort or another. Whether it be with the upcoming presidential elections or with the failure of the senate to pass a new campaign financing act, we are constantly being bombarded with campaign financing information from every news source. This is not very surprising, however, because campaign financing will touch all of our lives in one way or another, whether it be by the advertisements we will see or if we will be asked to donate money to our candidate. In this paper, I am going to give a general overview of campaign finance law, party soft money, and the debate over express and issue advocacy advertisements.
A Brief History of Campaign Finance Reform Law
The first big move on the federal level in the area of campaign finance reform was during the progressive era. The idea that started it was the want to get the so-called “fat-cats” out of national politics. Their goal was to eliminate big business from federal election campaigns. The amount of money these corporations were giving candidates was alarming to the progressive reformers. “Money from corporations, banks, railroads, and other businesses had become a major source of political funds, and numerous corporations were reportedly making donations to national party committees in amounts of $50,000 or more to ‘represent their share in the nations prosperity.’” (Corrado 27) Journalists and reformers charged that these large monetary donations were causing corruption to run rampant throughout American politics. They believed that favors and privileges were being granted to these large donors.
In 1904, Judge Alton B. Parker, the Democratic presidential nominee, alleged that large corporations were giving incumbent Theodore Roosevelt large contributions to run his campaign, in return for favors. After the election, several businesses admitted to giving Roosevelt money. This controversy led to Roosevelt asking congress to start campaign finance reform in his annual messages in 1905 and 1906. Congress finally acted in 1907, passing the Tillman Act: “…it shall be unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any laws of Congress, to make money contribution in connection with any election to any political office…” (Tillman 864)
This act did not squelch the cries for reform. On the eve of the 1910 election, the republican majority in congress passed the Publicity Act of 1910, which required national parties and committees to report campaign receipts and expenditures. In 1911, when democrats took control of both houses, they passed amendments to the Publicity Act. They required reporting in all federal elections by all candidates. In addition, they set limits on the amount of money candidates were allowed to spend on their campaigns: $5000 for a house seat, and $10,000 for a senate seat.
In the 1918 election, these limits were contested by Truman H. Newberry, a Michigan Republican who spent near $180,000 on his election. In 1921, the Supreme Court ruled in Newberry v. United States that the congressional authority to regulate elections did not extend to party primaries and nomination exercises, thus striking down the spending limits. This law stood until 1941 in United States v. Classic, where the court ruled that congress did in fact have the right to limit spending on federal elections, when state law made them a part of the elections and whenever the primary effectively determined the outcome of the election.
Shortly after the ruling in United States v. Classic, the teapot scandal gained national attention to the corruption that existed with large money contributions. In the teapot scandal, oil developers were giving gifts to federal officials responsible for granting oil leases in non-election years. This led to congress passing the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, which stood as the basic law govenoring campaign finance until the 1970s. This law[1] basically reoutlined the approaches in the previous legislation except for the deletion over the control of primaries. In addition, it raised the spending limits on campaigns to $25,000 on a senate seat and $5000 on a house seat. In addition it set up the framework for election committees and how reporting of receipts and expenditures would be done. This law was relatively ineffective being virtually ignored.
The next major reform in campaign financing was the Hatch Act and its amendments which was designed to “prevent pernicious political activities.” (Amendments 767) In effect, the law made it illegal for government employees that were not restrained by the Pendleton Act[2] to participate in politics, and also barred federal employees from collecting campaign contributions, removing a large source of money for state party organizations. The amendments to the hatch act made it illegal for any individual to give more than $5000 to a federal campaign in any calendar year. Also, in similar legislation called the Smith-Connally Act, federal labor unions were prohibited from making contributions to federal campaigns.
The next major law enacted for campaign finance was the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971. This law and its amendments are perhaps the most important laws govenoring campaign financing today. FECA established two major things. First, it set up strict contribution limits on the amount of money a candidate could give to his own campaign and set maximums on the amount a candidate could spend on media. Secondly, it set up strict disclosure requirements for federal candidates and political committees.
FECA was virtually eliminated and rebuilt when it was amended in 1974, in the wake of the Watergate scandal. It strictly set up limits on what individuals, parties, and political committees could donate to federal elections. It also replaced the media spending limits with total spending limits on presidential and congressional elections. Also, something that had never been done before in federal campaign finance, it set up the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to oversee and enforce the new law. But perhaps the most exciting idea in the 1974 amendments was the voluntary system of public financing it set up for general presidential elections and matching funds for presidential primaries.
Unfortunately like with all the other reform legislation, this would have to stand up to judicial scrutiny. Perhaps in one of the most controversial court decisions in campaign finance reform was Buckley v. Valeo. “The Buckley per curiam opinion opens by rejecting the government’s effort to secure a more permissive standard of judicial review by characterizing the regulation of campaign finance as a regulation of conduct, not speech.” (Neuborne 7) The opening part of the case characterizes individual expenditures during elections as speech:
The Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of the most fundamental first amendment activities. Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by the constitution…A restriction of the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communications during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money.” (Buckley 1)
Thus the amount of money that is spent independently of candidates, and the amount of money candidates spend on their own campaign is unlimited.
Party Soft Money
The financing of political parties has been very controversial, especially over the last twenty years. Most reformists look at party soft money raising as the source of the largest problem that needs to be fixed. Soft money emerged in the 1980’s and is defined as money that is collected outside the scope of the federal election campaign act. Because this fundraising occurs outside the scope of federal law, it provides national party organizations with a means of soliciting unlimited contributions from corporations, labor unions, wealthy individuals, and anyone else that has been banned from contributing in federal campaigns.
The start of soft money can be linked to the loosening of the restrictions of party expenditures on so-called “grass roots” campaigns in 1979. At that time, the parties complained that the FECA restrictions prevented them from doing the party-building exercises they traditionally did, and thus they were losing their role on the national election stage. Therefore, congress lightened the restrictions on money that parties spent independent of candidates that did not directly benefit candidates. But, the money still had to be raised from hard-money sources, that is, from sources within the FECA restrictions. This also allowed parties to spend an unlimited amount of money on “get-out-the-vote” drives.
In a surprise 1976 advisory opinion, the Federal Election Commission approved the use of non-federal funding in conjunction with a federal election.
This time the republican state committee of Kansas sought the Commission’s approval to use corporate and union funds, which were legal under Kansas law, in a voter drive that would benefit both federal and non-federal candidates. Specifically, the Kansans asked the Commission how they should allocate funds between federal and nonfederal funds for their voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts…instead of prohibiting the use of corporate and union money, the agency declared that the Kansas party could use the funds to finance a share of the voter drives, so long as they allocated their costs to reflect the federal and nonfederal shares of any costs incurred. (Corrado 172)
Thus, party soft money was born. This expansion is soft money did not go unnoticed however. Groups such as Common Cause filed lawsuits to challenge the role of soft money in federal elections.
The most notable example is Common Cause’s filing of a rule-making petition with the FEC in an effort to get the commission to review it’s previous decision, and try to end non-federal funding. Common Cause’s petition argued that non-federal funds were being raised in conjunction with federal elections and thus it violated federal campaign law. In 1986, the Federal Election Commission made it’s decision regarding Common Cause’s petition: “The [FEC] announces its denial of a petition for rulemaking filed on November 6, 1984 by Common Cause…They have not presented evidence of instances in which “soft money” has been used to influence federal elections.” (Rulemaking 15915)
Following the FEC’s denial of Common Cause’s petition for rulemaking on soft money, Common Cause sought relief in the court system. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia decided in 1987 that the allocation requirements for nonfederal dollars merited revision. The FEC failed to comply and one year later Common Cause forced the court to make the FEC change its restrictions. The FEC complied only making it more explicit what could be considered use for federal and non-federal funding.
The party committees raising of soft money however does have support. “Contrary to the caricature, non-federal (soft) money is not some sort of renegade system of unregulated, undisclosed political activity. Disclosure of soft money is fully regulated by the FEC…Soft money funds democracy, from dog-catcher to top dog.” (Thompson 12) But in recent days soft money still has it’s foes such as common cause and other analysts: “Both parties have placed a premium on soft money because it is largely unregulated. Individuals, corporations, and unions can give unlimited amounts of money for such party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote drives and generic issue ads.” (Stone 2410)
Thus the fight over soft money continues. As long as the Supreme Court holds that parties may spend independently of their nominees, and that money is speech, it will continue to be difficult to regulate parties role in federal election campaigns.
Issue vs. Express Advocacy Advertisements
“Political issue advocacy exploded into the public consciousness during the 1996 congressional and presidential elections. Organizations and Interest Groups saturated the local radio and television airways across the country with issue-oriented advertisements.” (Corrado 227) Also, the Democratic and Republican national committees ran an whole slew of “issue ads” featuring their presidential nominees before their party conventions. So what is an issue advocacy advertisement? Chris Conway explains it well in his article “Issue Ads Allow Unlimited Political Pitches:”
On television and radio last week, in 32 congressional districts across 26 states, the AFL-CIO has been hammering away at Republican incumbents. The ads in first-term Phil English’s Pennsylvania district show a mother worrying aloud. “My husband and I both work…and next year, we’ll have two kids in college.” To which the announcer adds: “Working families are struggling. But congressman Phil English voted with Newt Gingrich to cut college loans, while giving tax breaks to the wealthy.” About the only thing it doesn’t tell viewers to do is through English out of office. (Conway 19a)
The reason that the ad portrayed here does not tell voters to not vote for him, is because it is an issue advocacy advertisements. Simply stated, issue advocacy means advertisements that may mention a candidate or political party but do not “expressly advocate” the election or defeat of them using words like “Vote for,” “oppose,” and “support.”
Issue Advocacy has it’s roots in the Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court case. In this case the justices ruled that issue advocacy advertisements fell outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, and were thus not subject to federal law. Therefore, instead of broad coverage of “all spending” to “influence” federal elections, the law has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as meaning only advertisements that expressly advocate a candidate are subject to regulation.
Perhaps the next major court case is this area was Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Incorporated (MCFL). In this case, the MCFL published a newsletter with the headline “Everything You Need To Know to Vote Pro-Life,” and readers were given a list of all the candidates names and the ones that supported prolife were marked with a “y.” Next to the statement, they had affixed a disclaimer saying they did not endorse any particular candidate. The court decided that the FEC was correct in saying that MCFL violated express advocacy requirements and that this did constitute express advocacy and thus was subject to federal law. Therefore, the corporations giving in a federal election was a criminal act.
The Buckley test however was never really enforced consistently it would seem. Two similar cases show this: FEC v. Furgatch and Faucher v. FEC. In the first case, Furgatch published a full-page advertisement in the New York Times[3]. . In this decision the ninth circuit court ruled that the advertisement was express advocacy and thus was subject to FEC regulation. The Supreme Court said that they had to prevent speech that is clearly intended to affect the outcome of a federal election. The second case, Faucher v. FEC, the Maine Right to Life corporation had distributed a hand-out similar to the one in the case above. There was one major difference, it did not say “Vote Pro-life,” it just listed all the candidates and gave their position on the issue. Thus, the court ruled in this decision that the guide was not express advocacy, that instead it was only issue advocacy and thus not subject to federal guidelines.
Several other court cases have given rise to the issue advocacy advertisement. In FEC v. Central Long Island Tax Reform Immediately Committee (CLITRIM), the second circuit court considered whether an issues bulletin published by CLITRIM was express advocacy. The bulletin gave voters the voting record of a congressman but did not mention his party affiliation and did not refer to any federal election. Thus, the court decided that this was issue advocacy and was out of the scope of federal limits. Similarly in FEC v. Christian Action Network, the district court decided that express advocacy was very narrowly defined. The Christian Action Network placed an advertisement of television in Virginia that showed Clinton in a negative light, pointing to his support of gay rights issues. The advertisement tried to make Clinton look unpatriotic because of his support for gay rights legislation. The FEC argued in this case, that any viewer would understand the ad to be advocating the defeat of Clinton. The court ruled in this case that because it did not say explicitly “Do Not Vote for Clinton,” that the advertisement would be classified as and issue advocacy advertisement, and thus was protected by law.
The most major problem most people have with Issue Advocacy is that the amounts of money spent on it are completely unregulated. Political Parties may independently spend an unlimited amount of money on advertisements to support their candidate, as long as the advertisements do not explicitly say “vote for” or “don’t vote for.” In addition, these advertisements, not being subject to FECA regulation, may come from soft-money sources. In 1996, voters were bombarded by issue advocacy advertisements from corporations, political parties, individuals, and political action committees. Thus after the 1996 election, there was a large movement to regulate issue advocacy and soft money.
Should Campaign Finance be reformed and is it possible?
From the early campaigns, people have wanted to reform campaign financing in order to stop corruption and free the leaders of the country from the pockets of “fat cats.” With the reforms that are already in place, candidates are virtually independent of the money that is spent on their campaigns. Political Parties, Corporations, and Wealthy individuals can spend unlimited money advocated a candidate or discouraging another, so long as they send it independently. The question that is being asked, is this reform enough?
First, look at party soft money. Reformers argue that parties spend entirely too much money on campaigns. In the 1996 campaign, the two parties together spent $270 million in soft money advocated their presidential candidate, although no explicit advertising was used. Opponents to reform in soft money argue that if we eliminate soft money, we eliminate the parties lifeblood, what keeps them alive. “Starving the parties isn't necessarily a good thing. Many political scientists feel that without strong parties to provide an organizational and ideological framework, US politics could become a chaotic system of essentially free-lance candidates - many of them rich.” (Grier 1) By eliminating the major role that parties have in elections, and moving to candidate-centered politics, you cut a major portion of the United States’ political system.
The second issue reformers argue is the need to reform so-called “issue advocacy” and make it unlawful. It is argued that despite the independent nature of these advertisements, if it helps a candidate win office, they are still indebted and thus, this opens up the door to corruption. “These advertisements can serve to influence elections, even without expressly naming a candidate. And by helping a candidate win election, the corporate and labor interests that produce the ads gain access to elected officials.” (Feldmann 3) Opponents to reform in issue advocacy agree with the supreme courts interpretation of money equaling speech. If people are not permitted to spend money on issues during campaigns, than the issues will fall by the wayside, and that would be a serious detriment to the political system. Furthermore, they argue, that by having groups able to put their issues out in the public arena enhances the political views, often increasing public and governmental awareness of important issues.
Now for the reformers, is it possible for them to reform? I think that it is safe to say that reform is difficult in any area which will effect the ability of a candidate to raise money. Afterall, most of the time in the House and Senate, someone is going to be running for office, and wanting access to large sums of money. Look at the death of the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate this year, which if passed would have eliminated soft-money and issue advocacy advertisements. Despite the passage of a similar piece in the house, this bill was shot down in the Senate, and even threatened with a filibuster.
In the event that a campaign finance reform bill would pass both houses and the presidency, would the court uphold it? In the wake of all the court cases supporting money as speech, I doubt that the Supreme Court could uphold a ban on issue advocacy advertisements. Although a ban on party soft-money may be more permissible, I believe this is still highly improbable.
Conclusion
In a world, where television, radio, and newspaper dominate the media, a man can no longer get his message out by standing on a street corner shouting it. The decline of the party machines forces candidates seeking federal office to use the media to get exposure to the public, and for the public to get their information. Media time is expensive; this is a fact of the condition we currently live in. Thus, in order for someone to be heard and have their speech mean anything, the Supreme Court has ruled, that money is speech.
Void of any mandatory public financing system, which would be impossible with the current Supreme Court, candidates are forced to spend tremendous amounts of money and time on their candidacies for public office. We wish there was a way to get this money without signs of corruption, but where money trails, people follow. Thus, as voters, we have an obligation, in a system that requires full disclosure, to pick the candidate that will be least affected by large money, and shows little or no signs of corruption. We, the voters must be careful in a system where “money makes the man[4].”
Bibliography
“Amendments to Hatch Act, 1940.” 54 Stat 767. 19 July 1940.
Buckley v. Valeo. 424 U.S. Supreme Court 1. 1976.
Conway, Chris. “‘Issue Ads’ Allow Unlimited Political Pitches.” Charleston (WV) Gazette & Daily Mail, 15 Sept 1996, p. 19a.
Corrado, Anthony, Thomas E. Mann, Daniel R. Ortiz, Trevor Potter, and Frank J. Sorauf. Campaign Finance Reform. Brookings Institutions Press, 1997.
Feldmann, Linda. “‘Soft-Money’ Ban Would Change Campaigning…” Christian Science Monitor, Vol 89, Iss 212, 26 Sept 1997, p. 3.
Grier, Peter and James N. Thurman. “How a ‘Soft Money’ Ban Would Change Politics.” Christian Science Monitor, vol 90, iss 178, 7 Aug 1998, p. 1.
Malbin, Michael J. Money and Politics in the United States. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1984.
Neuborne, Burt. Campaign Finance Reform & the Constitution: A Critical Look at Buckley v. Valeo. Brennan Center for Justice and NYU UP, 1997.
“Rulemaking Petition; Notice of Disposition.” Federal Register, vol 51 no. 82. 29 April 1986, p. 15915.
Stone, Peter H. “The Green Wave.” National Journal, 9 Nov 1996, pp. 2410-12, 2414.
Thompson, Brent. “Despite Reform Frenzy, Don’t Blame Soft Money for Campaign Scandal.” Roll Call, 27 March 1997, p. 12.
“Tillman Act of 1907.” 34 Stat. 864. 26 Jan 1907.
*sorry trunks but I had to make that text a little larger. I didn't change anything but the size of the text.*-rwnugent
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Earl
Da' Man
Joined: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 672
Points : 102
Location: LA
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:25 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | ...to pick the candidate that will be least affected by large money, and shows little or no signs of corruption. We, the voters must be careful in a system where “money makes the man |
Once again this is the solution, pick the right one and hope???? Anyone can be decieving, especially in politics. Perhaps, Andrew Jackson's "rotation in office" is an idea to get less corruption within politics? I personally was fond of this idea of rotating politicians out of office every # of years to produce less corruption, I debated this in Student Congress in high school back in the day (Term Limits).
Dude what planet are you on? Look at REALITY, campaign financial reforms will never happen the way the American public will wants it to. My argument is VERY logical when you look at it, why don't you just accept reality for what it is, and realize that it is unrealistic to think that reforms are actually going to happen, the way we want it. If they do happen, creating less corruption, I will be VERY surprised.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
MrTrunks
Veteran Poster
Joined: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 643
Points : 120
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:13 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Before:
| Earl wrote: |
Campaign Financing reforms is a great and amazing idea, However it WILL NEVER happen.
|
After:
| Earl wrote: |
... campaign financial reforms will never happen the way the American public will wants it to.
|
You are changing your story…
Face it campaign reforms continue to happen. Our elected officials do vote despite personal/professional fundraising greed.
Here is what one conservative author had to say about the passing of one of the most resent federal bills/acts related to campaign finance reform (McCain-Feingold):
There’s one non-obvious thing about this issue: The two political parties have acted idealistically and against their own self-interests. Most Republicans oppose campaign finance “reform” even though it would give them a slight advantage over the Democrats (Democrats depend heavily on Soft Money contributions.) Anyone who thinks politics is all about money has to explain why political parties would take a stance on campaign contributions that would hurt them.
The Supreme Court upheld this Act in late 2003.
| Earl wrote: |
My argument is VERY logical when you look at it, ... |
Logical or not, it is not true.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
TheDude
I've been around a while
Joined: Feb 01, 2004
Posts: 259
Points : 98
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:35 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| MrTrunks wrote: | | There’s one non-obvious thing about this issue: The two political parties have acted idealistically and against their own self-interests. Most Republicans oppose campaign finance “reform” even though it would give them a slight advantage over the Democrats (Democrats depend heavily on Soft Money contributions.) Anyone who thinks politics is all about money has to explain why political parties would take a stance on campaign contributions that would hurt them. |
It's because the Republicans know that the good of our country comes first, before the self-interests of the party. The Democrat Party on the other hand thinks of its own interests first, even if it hurts our country...
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
rwnugent
Sexiest Man Alive
Joined: Sep 16, 2003
Posts: 2353
Points : 1262
Location: baton rouge
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:49 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
How can you say that the Republicans have the best interests of our country in mind? It is awell known fact that Pres. Bush and most of his cabinet and other appointees all come from the petroleum industry. The Republican party gets as much or more money from big corporations as anu other political party.
|
____________
"That´s my opinion I could be wrong." -Dennis Miller
Procrastination is like masturbation. It seems like a good idea at the time time but in the end you´re just fucking yourself. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Earl
Da' Man
Joined: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 672
Points : 102
Location: LA
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:03 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Logical or not, it is not true. |
Thats a matter of opinion. If they are happening, but there is still corruption due to campaign fanancing, then the purpose of reforms is not achieved, and thus, isn't happening. That's the way I look at it.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| | | | | | | |
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
