Twistoffate--

The reason Arizona must have elected McCain is because Arizona must be full of total morons (or is at least 51% moronic, my apologies to any progressive Arizonans). Not that my state (South Carolina) is any better. Our two senators are Lindsey Graham, the biggest warmonger in Congress, and Jim DeMint, a man who believes that single mothers and homosexuals should be banned from teaching in public schools.

We need to not only institute public financing, but change the rules for presidential debates. Debating candidates should only meet the first two requirements of the debates:

1) Meet all requirements set forth by the Constitution, and

2) Be on enough states' ballots to have a chance of winning the election. (All though I think this rule could easily be scrapped by getting rid of one of the most useless institutions in our country, the electoral college.)

Unless I missed something, public funding is only part of a badly-needed solution to a long-standing problem. Since when does it taske two years to run an election campaign? Does it really take that long for a reasonably intelligent person to examine the issues and the positions regarding them of those hoping to be elected, and come to conclusions as to how to vote? Who profits from such lengthy campaigns? Obviously the media gains the most, since polls tell us that they are giving the 2008 campaigns more coverage than any other matter. Much will happen before the Fall of 2008, much will change. Only the media will gain by tracking the predictable flip-flops of the politicans seeking office. The so-called debates are at best meaninginless and rather silly exercises designed for amusement, not for education. Yes, public funding would help, but some good common sense might, too.

The US electoral system is insane. In my past, I lived in Switzerland, and witnessed an election while I was there. It
was such a sensible system. Three weeks before the election, each
voter was mailed a packet which contained a ballot and the party
platforms of all the parties which were running candidates. The
voter simply marked the ballot as they wished and returned the ballot. The voter could read the included party platforms or do
as much research as they felt necessary before marking their ballot and returning it.

In contrast, the US elections are over long, bring up irrelevant issues about candidates personal lives, and, in general, are full
of histrionics and back biting. The whole process of extended campaigns makes candidates susceptible to being bought off by large donor who are needed to keep such long campaigns afloat.

You might argue that the US needs a longer campaign season because it is a bigger country, blah, blah, blah. I don't buy it. Part of the problem is the so called "two party" system and the system of primaries. Such political theater is unnecessary.
We need to *fundamentally* restructure the way that elections
take place. The other part of the problem is that we are a "representative" republic (i.e. the people with the most money
are most represented). Although not perfect, I think we would be
much better off with a proportional or parliamentary democracy.
The current US "winner take all" system is unfair, too susceptible to corruption, and doesn't encourage new ideas to enter the political discourse.

What should really be required is for broadcasters to be required to provide free air time for political candidates (ALL candidates, not just Dems and Repubs). Long established in American law is the concept that the airwaves are publicly owned. So why shouldn't broadcasters, who are given licenses to use the public's airwaves, be required to give something back? Of course the National Association of Broadcasters has always fought such proposals tooth and nail, with lots of campaign bucks to their favorite politicians. Which kind of makes it a vicious circle.

I don't really disagree with anything this writer says, I just don't think his proposals go far enough. And another thing occurs to me: if, as he says, they have publicly financed campaigns in Arizona, then how come voters in that state keep electing an imbecile like John McCain? So obviously publicly financed campaigns isn't the whole solution.

Can you imagine the impact it would have if someone like Nader or Kucinich were given 15 mins. of airtime on national TV a week or a few days before the election? It wouldn't cost the broadcasters that much in lost revenue. They're using the public's airwaves for free; they should be required to pony up!

TwistofFate, you're talking about a democracy. We don't have one of those. We have a corporatocracy. And they won't give up what they've got without a fight, for which few Americans show any inclination.

What we need is CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS, not government funding of political campaigns (i.e., not public financing.) Public financing is voluntary, meaning any campaign that wants to refuse the government funding in order to continue doing extremely unethically-high and unlimited spending, is allowed to.

And, public financing systems can't be mandatory for all campaigns to participate in, because it's unethical to force a political campaign to spend government funding if it doesn't want to.

Furthermore, whereas campaign spending limits is fair to all of the campaigns in a race for a political office (i.e., draws a limit line that all of the campaigns must abide by) public financing isn't (i.e., some legitimate campaigns are excluded from receiving a fair share of the government funding or receive none of it at all, because the government decides which campaigns are legitimate-enough to receive the public financing and which campaigns aren't.)

Public financing is a capitulation.

WhiteRose's suggestion of a parliamentary democracy deserves further exploration. Sure, it could likely take a decade or more (or a tragedy worse than 9/11) to gain traction toward real change in this country, but this status quo can only go on so much longer.

The reduction of our political choices to two (or really, one...maybe 1.5) is similar to what nationwide chain stores (read: large corporations) have done with consumer choice when it comes to how we live, work and shop. And all the attendant impacts on our natural environment. In large parts of the country, your choices include or are largely limited to McKFChilibee's, WalSoftLinens'n'Junk, this cookie-cutter starter castle, or that one. These choices are not representative of the diversity, creativity or various tastes/preferences of the people of this country and neither is our current political system. Neither are sustainable for very much longer. Both have been sold to us for the profit of the sellers.

TwistofFate: Arizona and Maine's laws only cover state and local elections and have, by many reports, worked quite well. The national parties aren't interested in playing that game.

Zazmo, you've made a great point. But that does not mean we should not have public financing. We should ban fund-raising for campaigns in any form completely and rewrite the proposed public financing reforms so that smaller parties (like the socialist ones) can have a chance.

Public financing is not only less expensive but this is one of the most promising paths to restoring our democracy.

Right now it is not 1 person = 1 vote, but something like $1,000 = 1 vote (As Greg Palast had aptly put it, we have the best democracy money can buy). But donlt hold your breath, neither the politician of both parties are against (why should they give up the advantage of incumbency?), nor the mainstream media will support it (why should they forgo the lucrative market of political ads?

(By the way, the other promising path would be term limit. Hopefully then elected politicians will be less vulnerable to lobbyists.)

Thank you Mike McCabe for explaining, in simple terms, why clean elections systems are a bargain for the taxpayer and hold the real hope of diminishing the influence of special interests on our elected officials.

Everyone, especially political candidates, on both sides of the aisle should welcome this voluntary campaign finance system. It frees all candidates from spending much of their time raising money and allows them to do what they should want to do, namely interact with their constituents and represent them once in office without any possible bias or appearance of bias arising from the receipt of special interest money.

TWIST OF FATE: Your media idea is a solid one... if only CLINTON had not signed on in l996 to deregulate media and GIVE the bandwidths away without demanding a "tithe" in the form of time allotted to candidates indeed to express their stand on issues of concern to most. Instead we get smoke and mirrors, high cost per minute theatre posing as politics, and LIES!!!!

First of all, I would hate to limit the term of Dennis Kucinich. Secondly, public financing is the only way to go. It attracts challengers to incumbents and gives the public an opportunity to vote for someone who hasn't accepted private money. We can have candidates who answer to us, and listen to us.

Arizona used several sources of income to finance campaigns, including raising court fees. Of course, they do still have John McCain. We need to go national with this.

The other thing we need to do is get the National Initiative passed. Then we get to be in charge, instead of the corporations. So let's work on that.

And you can hear Mike McCabe at fightinbobfest in Baraboo, WI on September 8
www.fightingbobfest.org
(along with Cindy Sheehan!)

"So go ahead and say you don't want your tax money used for their election campaigns. But they're using it anyway, way more than you ever knew. And they'll keep right on doing it until enough of us wise up and stop listening to their propaganda, start asking the right questions and then demanding answers that serve the public interest."

OK then, I do not want my tax money used for their election campaigns. I also do not want politicians deciding what politicians will get from the public coffers in order to campaign, and I don't want them deciding who is and who is not good enough to get money from them. You think the party system is stratified now? Wait until party people are deciding the standards they will set for getting campaign funds.

The answer to corruption in office is not violating the 1st amendment and limiting people from freely supporting those of their choice with their own money. Wising up and not listening to the propoganda and asking the right questions means not listening the 'solution' of placing even more power in the hands of those you already know are corrupt.

In this article we see an indictment of the misuse of power and the solution is...to give them MORE power, now over their own election funds? By what method is it rational to give people you do not trust more control on the basis that they are already too corrupt to handle what they have?

If you want to end corruption...end what they are corrupt because of..access to State power. If you don't want them handing out tax money..insure they cannot do so. Problem solved. When someone is stealing from the cookie jar you will not solve it by putting a lock on the jar...then handing the key to the thieves. You get rid of the cookies so the jar is empty and no one will pay them for access to cookies that are not there.

The ideas in this article are poorly thought out and inconsistent. Anyone who thinks they can fix corruption by giving more power to the corrupt needs a crash course in reason.

This is the first step, take this step and things will start moving in the right direction. Maybe the people can have a voice again.

The problem is it will never fly as a law -- it will be shot down immediately by the right-wing appointed supreme court. Hell, they shot down McCain Feingold with almost their first ruling. It has to be done as an amendment. Grass roots could sell it, but mtngoat (mountin' goat?) and his type will bleat against it because they've bought every bill the corporations are selling.

This is amazing. You have not one actual refutation or response to the fundamental issues I point out, and your only rebuttal is merely that I've 'bought' something you can't even present a cogent argument against.

How will 'the people have a voice' when you expect the very people you accuse of being corrupt to 'reform' financing in a way that will be to their disadvantage?

Can't you even see that you expect the very people you distrust, the ones you think are corrupt, to use the increased power you'll hand them in ways you'll agree with...when they already do not and that's what has made you mad?

Seriously man, you need to THINK about what you are saying.

McCain Feingold should be entirely scrapped as an infringment on the first amendment. The first amendment contains no 'but' or 'except' for political speech or support.

Actually, Mountin' Goat, it's you that have offered nothing to this discussion. You have only tried to poo-poo every suggestion and comment here, pointing out why you think they can't work. You say that we all mistrust everyone, but you want to maintain the status quo, keeping those in office that are the least trustworthy and have proven to be least capable of governing. Your suggestion is that the perfect is the enemy of the better.

My suggestion actually had to do with the "how" in support of the "what." You completely missed that and attacked something else. Are you a politician?

Your attempts at obfuscating the issue using typical corrupt corporate lawyer speak show that you would do or say anything so long as there's a big fat payday in it for you. It sounds as if your real concern is "if the people had a voice who then would speak for the poor little soul-less corporations?" I see through your crap. You're a typical freep-er.

EOQ

If you expect someone to 'offer something' that resolves innate contradictions you face, you're going to be waiting a long long time.

This article maintains that those in power are corrupt, and then proposes to hand the corrupt even more control, now over their own campaign funds and who gets them.

You have brought *ZERO* to table for resolving this fundamental contradiction, and a suggestion as to the 'how' doesn't resolve this because it doesn't deal at all with the problem pointed out.

Why will the corrupt take the power you give them and use it to end their advantage? Give us a reasoned answer, don't sit here making all kinds of claims of 'obfuscation' when you can't even deal with the central issue while you are attacking me instead.

The 'people' DO have a voice..it's called voting and supporting campaigns. Your plan is to turn over control of campaign funds to someone else, the same someone else you already claim is corrupt. It will result in the people having less voice, not more, because they will not be the ones deciding who gets what...the politicians will, the gentry you insist on creating.

Try dealing with the points instead of working yourself into a lather over my words or your other assumptions about me.

MtnGoat and qbaldsmoove...

Read my earlier comment to this article. It's the compromise you two are looking for.

I appreciate you comment Zazmo, but I did see your idea already and IMO it amounts to direct violation of freedom of speech.

What about a step by step approach ? Let's say that I want to become President or Senator or any other elective office like say mayor of a town and I am not a millionaire or politically connected to influential people at a political party and I don't want to sell myself to some company that pays for my campaign to have a real chance to reach public office. This new 100 % public financed campaign law would establish that I and all my opponents are banned from receiving any money at all save for what I get from public money and all candidates get the same level of funding by steps. This means that if I get 100 signatures thus proving that I have at least some public support I get some minimal funding and if after some time I get enough support to collect 2,000 signatures I get a larger level of funding and so on in some incremental system say: 10,000 , 50,000 , 200,000 and let's say that if I can collect 500,000 signatures I qualify as a candidate for President (and a maximal level of funding). Also since by FCC law all free air spectrum belongs to the common good of all people and all TV stations and radio stations have to periodically prove they are serving the common good to get their transmission licenses renewed I would make a law that all radio and TV stations must dedicate a certain number of hours per week to any and all candidates for free (or at most by some minimal fee paid entirely with public funds). We could once again have candidates that answer only to their own consciences and to their constituents not to whoever has the money.

In case anybody bought into mountin' goat's "argument" let's look at it more closely.

Mountin' goat posits that:
1) politicians are inherently corrupt
2) said corrupt politicians will eventually subvert all funds that come their way

Next, mountin' goat suggests that it is better to have a very large fund for those politicians to subvert, given to them by a small number of contributors, than a smaller fund given to equally by all tax paying entities. Although his sentence structure is quite sound, his logic is nothing but a house of cards that collapses under any close scrutiny. It's as hollow as "trickle down econimics," which I'd bet he's standing to defend at this very moment, and which this whole concept would go against because, as indicated above, everybody would have to contribute to equally. I wonder how the fact that those politicians, having subverted the very large fund are now very largely indebted to those contributors (who ain't us BTW) plays into mountin' goat's vision of life. And it must be worth a king's ransom for that is what today's corporations are contributing to hold an ear. Consider the vast amounts spent on the lies intended to keep us as quaint little consumers, and then the piles that go to the men on k street, on top of the spoils lavished on the good senator himself.

It's no wonder that my little voice can't be heard among the din, with the corporations telling the story on everything I see and blasting it till it's all I hear from the moment I wake up till I lay my poor weary head down. The majority of the public wants a cleaner environment, but that's not what the Mobil/ADM/Wearhouser/Gm conglomerate wants, so we get what they want. The majority want better health care, in fact universal, but that's not what, oh hell, none of them want, so we won't get it.

As for the free speech he keeps wrapping himself in, it seems it's not subject to stare decisis, which seems to change as often as the supreme court does these days. And the soon-to-fall net neutrality will make our voices even smaller.

So the struggle continues against his ilk.

qbaldsmoove, nice points, but I hope you're not directing them toward MtnGoat, whose thinking is cast in a skull made of stone. His philosophy is based on one idea, that autonomy overrules every other consideration.

Thanks kathyodat, actually, it's that sometimes their arguments seem reasonable at first glance and can sway some people. They need to be exposed to the light of serious consideration, which usually debunks them.

Okay, I know this is ancient history, but I couldn't resist. The problem with MtnGoat's argument is that public financing is all about creating more democracy. If you don't need to provide huge amounts of cash to run an effective campaign, then third- and fourth-party candidates will be able to run effectively; people from truly humble backgrounds will be able to run for high office; people who genuinely believe in serving the common good and are fundamentally less corruptible will run. And if politicians raise the allowance that candidates get too much, thus wasting our tax dollars, we can vote them out of office in favor of people who promise to lower it again. If the newly elected officials break that promise, we can write letters asking them to consider that what happened to their predecessors could happen to them, and one or more of the letter writers could jump into the next race themselves and be assured of having more than enough cash available! Though of course they would refrain from using all of it, as a matter of principle and because they know people are watching. (Convincing people to keep a closer eye on their government is also something we really need to work on.)