Campaign Reform - by F.L. Mervar
With all the difficulty Congress seems to have in
reaching a consensus which will provide a fair and bi-partisan election
system, I propose the following draft.
Bearing in mind that many intricate details need
to be worked out, please understand that these fundamental revisions
are subject to fine tuning and only the basic concepts are provided
as food for thought. It is only the basic concept that I am outlining
herein. Of course, nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment will
suffice to enact these changes, but I feel that they are necessary,
if we are to ever reform our system of representation to a system
as devoid of "big money" interests. Additionally, these
concepts will apply equally to both Federal as well as State election
processes.
The basics of my proposal are as follows:
Each election cycle, i.e. two years for Federal
purposes, we should assign each legislator who is up for re-election
a number from 1 to whatever the total number of Congressmen/Senators
who are up for re-election.
These numbers should be put in a barrel and then
we decide on a percentage of who will "Not", be allowed
to run for re-election.
For purposes of argument, we will say that 15% of
the representatives who are up for re-election, will not be allowed
to run. Then, these positions will be given to a lottery winner,
chosen by a computer database of taxpayers on a random basis. These
citizens, will be given the seats and be allowed to serve or run
for re-election just like the other members, but will also be subject
to the lottery system when their terms are up.
This system would serve several purposes.
1) It would, (potentially), turnover the entire
Congress, given the 15% number, every 12-14 years. Likely, due to
chance, it would take longer, but the potential exists. Given the
normal turnover by way of retirements and persons not choosing to
run for re-election, 12-15 years is not hard to believe.
2) This system would also keep "big money"
out of the process, because not many people or organizations would
spend millions of dollars to elect someone who may only be in power
for potentially only two-six years.
3) It would also get some "real" people
into office and these people would be more likely to bring reality
into the Washington scene. The only requirements for citizens who
are drawn in the lottery system are that they conform to the following:
1) They must live in the district or state.
2) They must be registered voters and have voted
in the last election. Each cycle (two years), this requirement will
increase, thus giving people an incentive to vote more often. Possibly
the requirement could be raised to being required to have voted
in 80% of the past "X" number of elections.
3) They cannot be a convicted felon, election laws
will take care of that.
4) They cannot be behind on child support or state/federal
taxes.
5) They cannot presently hold any other State or
Federal elected office.
Plus you can add some other requirements, but I
would keep those at a minimum, and of course, they do have the option
of declining the seat.
Additionally, each Congressman/Senator's staffs
should be cut in half. there is no reason for these people to have
huge staffs, they should be required to do their own research and
vote their conscience, not some staff member's opinion.
* * *
An Idea for Campaign Financing....
I believe candidates should be able to receive as
much money as they can get people to give them, as long as it is
fully disclosed and available easily by the American public, via
a web site. Let the press tear them apart by keeping dibs on them
years after the election. If a list is easily accessible by all,
people will see connections, if money and policies start to flow
in a particular direction.
On to Another Idea...
TV is the most widely used media form that can educate
the American public about candidates views, plans, and accomplishments.
It's is no wonder why politicians want to use it
to get there message across. But it is very expensive. So enters,
needing lots of money to market their ideas on TV.
One way to lessen the furry to get extraordinary
amounts of money, is to eliminate the need to pay for TV time. Let's
create a TV station dedicated to politicians. Both national and
local. Initially CSPAN could be used as a test channel to get it
going, but eventually spin off into its own cable channel.
Maybe even take on advertising to help defray cost
or make money. (non-political ads only) National TV stations would
be required to run ads promoting the new channel and in turn on
the New Channel they would be able to advertise their station.
All parties would be able to get FREE air time to
discuss issues and their plans. Time slots could be set aside to
educate people on government in general, history, and ways to keep
in touch with the issues.
I'd really like to see our government (democrats
and republicans) stop nit picking and start discussing real solutions
to the issue.
Sincerely,
Kristi
* * *
Campaign and voter reform go hand in hand.
As an outline.
1. Every voter must serve two years SERVICE to their
county before earning the right to vote.
2. All canidates for public office must have completed
their SERVICE to their country.
Add that no one could receive benifits for the gov.
without first completing their two years SERVICE to their country
and welfare reform is included.
* * *
I don't think you can get the money out of politics
anymore than you can take money out of any aspect of our lives.
I think we should be able to donate money to any politician or PAC
we choose, as long as there is full disclosure. I, as a smoker,
can't go to Washington to make myself heard, so I support the National
Smokers Alliance. Writing to Babs Mikulski or,now that I,m in wv,
to Jay Rockefeller about pro-life issues, results in a condescending
reply, so I support the NRLC. How else can I be heard? Money talks,
so I want and deserve the right to with my wallet. Full disclosure
is the only reform needed!
Mag
* * *
Reform What?
Freeing up the process is the way to go. Let drug
dealers donate. Let the john gattis' of the United States donate
however much they desire. No foreign money, period,which is why
Clinton and his neo-buddhist veep should be run out of town on a
rail.
--==pw_boundary==--
* * *
The Democrats knew that they needed a fundraiser
that could bring in the Dollars.
Like many folk heros, the average citizen can glamatorize
the crooks. This has been going on since the days of Robin Hood.
Look at Jessse James, Bonnie and Clyde, Billy the Kid,etc.
The Democrats knew that "Dollar Bill"
had his skeletons in the closet but overlooked these knowing how
the public idolizes gangsters and crooks. In comes "Dollar
Bill".
Even if he isn't around for the 8 full years, no
one cannot give him credit for bringing in the Dollars: ie "Dollar
Bill"
Happy New Year and the best to you and yours.
Rick
* * *
My proposal is simple: Only U.S. citizens can contribute
time and money to poltical candidates "who represent their
district/state or for president." Business/Unions/PACs could
not contribute moeny or volunteer help. Individuals can also contribute
to national political parties. Candidate for office could receive
money/help only from citizens they represent or a National Political
Party (Rep/Dem/Libr). Business/Unions/PAC's could endorse candidates
but not contribute anything. This proposal should give constituents
more clout with their representatives and eliminate the influence
of lobbyists.
Bill F
* * *
Campaign Reform
The problem with Campaign Finance isn't the fact
that people are obeying the law and it's a bad law. The problem
is that people are disobeying the law entirely. They then get fined
for breaking the law, and they pay off the fines, happily sitting
in their newly-elected office.
The only way to truly reform campaign finance is
to make the crime punishable by expulsion from office. Period. Until
that is done, any laws written on the subject will mean nothing,
because most politicians see paying their fines as a normal expense
of running for office. Obviously, these politicians feel that it
is worth the money to be elected. Therefore, any meaningful attempt
at campaign finance reform must include the invalidation of an illegally-financed
election, since it undermines the purpose of violating the laws
to begin with.
Keller
* * *
To End Scandals
The surest, quickest way to clean-up American politics
is to amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to include
the Senate, House of Representatives, Vice-President, President,
and all President appointed officials!! This would surely stop the
sex scandals, misappropriation of funds, conduct unbecoming, and
ethics violations, to name a few. Lets see them try to get a job
after a felony conviction, and wave goodbye to any retirement funds
or perks.
The UCMJ was designed to keep order in the military
ranks and is unencumbered by crossing state and international boundaries.
If it is good enough for the 17 year-olds enlisting in the service
components, it is good enough for the "mature" leaders
of our country, the elected officials that we are to look to for
guidance!!
Sign me,
DC
* * *
Campaign Finance Reform
From the the Congressional display on from both
sides of the aisle, it has become obvious we are totally wasting
our time over this issue. Plainly, the Honorables do NOT want it
and we'll never get it!
Best
Bush
Defender of Truth, Justice and the American Way
* * *
Real Campaign Reform
Instead of returning illegal campaign donations
to the donors, force the party/candidate receiving the money to
distribute it to everyone who voted in the last presidential election.
The donor is punished by losing his money. The candidate receiving
the illegal donation is punished by having to spend his or her legitimate
donations to distribute the illegal donations. The voters are encouraged
to vote because they will receive a check for a few cents from the
sleazy candidates. Sounds good to me.
Russ, SD
* * *
Campaigning
A Scotsman once said,"Political campaigning
is the Art of getting money from the Rich and votes from the Poor
with the promise to protect one from the other."
* * *
McCain
Bush Jr. will gain my support if he eventually engages
McCain regarding the good Senator's lunacy on campaign finance.
To have the federal government regulate how private citizens can
use their assets in the dissemination of political messages is the
most horribly imbecilic idea ever supported by a Republican. Democrats,
of course, embrace imbecilism as a badge of honor
* * *
Campaign Finance Reform- A direct assault on free
speech. The media wants more power to shape opions and elect liberals.The
ABC Network is leading the attack. Senator McCain wants to stop
MADD and other organizations from even mentioning the names of the
canditates.ABC froze other media out of the event. ABC also keept
other opions out of the debate.
* * *
Campaign Finance Reform
IF SENATOR McCAIN WANTS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
SO BAD WHY DOESN'T HE CAMPAIGN FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 17th AMENDMENT.
THEN SENATORS WOULD BE APPOINTED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE STATE LEGISLATURES.
THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO RAISE A DIME FOR ELECTION COMPARED TO THE
6 TO 10 MILLION THAT THEY CURRENTLY SPEND FOR A 150,000 DOLLAR A
YEAR JOB.
CHUCK SPENCE.
* * *
Campaign Finance Reform Made Easy
What's the big deal about campaign finance reform? There is a very
simple solution to the "problem". Cut the congressional
and senate salaries in half or better yet by two thirds and make
them pay Social Security and Medicare taxes like everyone else.
The politicians could no longer afford to make a career out of politics
(probably the best thing that could happen to this country), and
would eliminate the need to raise any "soft money" for
re-election. In other words, after a term or two make these clowns
go out and get a real job.
Sincerely,
David Thompson
Monona, WI
* * *
You Do Understand
I truly believe that it is the government representative
that is corrupt and not the money. That view is way to simplistic.
It is not possible to remove all the corrupt individuals in our
government. Even those representatives who are honest are open to
views expressed by the public, as they should be. It is a fact that
money buys access and therefore the opportunity to influence. If
our government actually gave as much attention to the individual
without money, as they do to those with money, then this would not
be an issue.
You seem to be taking this a little to personal.
No one wants to limit your right to influence the government, they
simply want to allow everyone the same access. Since you do understand
that money buys access, and you believe that donations shouldn't
be limited, you are indicating that you believe those with money
have a right to better access to our government. I don't think that
is what the constitution intended. If that is truly your point of
view then you are exercising class discrimination.
Aaron Phillips
* * *
Agree that much in McCain's bill is unconstitutional;
however, if it weren't for all of the other unconstitutional actions
by Congress we wouldn't need to be talking about Campaign Finance
Reform because there wouldn't be any need for it*.
*see my letter to the editor for explanation below.
March 18, 2001
Letter to the Editor - The Daily Statesman (Dexter,
Missouri)
The debate in Washington is hot and heavy on the
subject of Campaign Finance Reform. The McCain-Feingold-Cochran
Campaign Reform Bill proposes to modify the limits on certain campaign
contributions and prohibit others. All of this legislative activity,
we are told, is in an effort to reduce the use of power "influence"
against members of Congress by the so-called Special Interest Groups.
Isn't is amazing, Congress keeps trying to correct
the problems caused by the intrusive power in Washington with adjustments
to the steering mechanism when its too much horsepower in the engine
that needs correcting. Campaign Finance Reform, may make minor changes
in the direction that the Federal Government is moving but its size
and power will continue to "collide" with our Liberty
and continue to cause bureaucratic-inflicted "road rage"
until the "horse" power in Congress is reduced to its
authorized and necessary size.
In other words, we don't need Campaign Finance Reform
we need Power Reform. The beauty of creating power reform is that
we don't need any new laws to accomplish it. We only need to make
Congress reduce its power to that which they are authorized (by
the people) in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution
limits the power of Congress to a few specific delegated functions.
When we acheive a reduction of the power ofCongress to its authorized
Constitutional level, most of the available "Political Purchases"
sought by special interest groups, via campaign contributions, will
be eliminated and thus the elimination for a need for Campaign Finance
Reform.
Bruce Hillis
* * *
Why not just attach a value related to the GDP as
a limit on campaign spending? Perhaps 2% with 60% going to the house
and 40% going to the senate . The total would be divided by the
combined number of congressmen and that amount would be the maximum
allowable that any campaign could spend for an election. This also
curtails the TV revenue spent on commercials and equalizes the playing
field. If less money is available; perhaps, the money would be spent
more closely associated with the issue a of district from which
the campaigns located. Each potential candidate would have to address
issues and spend campaign monies more frugally. The amount raised
from any source would not be permitted to exceed the maximum allowed
for each seat in the congress. Special interests could donate; but,
only as a smaller portion on the total campaign budget.
--- Terry Pellas
* * *
campaign finance reform
I see rest have almost got the Idea. Let the people
give to whomever they please and whoever they want. And yet I hear
people wanting to eliminate the right of unions and corporations.
However the best Idea I have heard about campaign finance reform
came from a Liberal(I am right of Attila the Hun). I beleive it
was the previous host of the daily show. Who wanted to make jackets
with patches of Corperate sponsors like race car drivers. Don't
eliminate anyones right to speek don't, silence anyone, not even
the Chinese. That sounds just like the Iron curtain keeping their
people in ignorance. We need no such protection from Chinese ideas.
We need not fear the false Ideas if we drag them into the light
they will die. though Craig Kilborn might think it a bad thing,
I would be proud to wear the patches of Corporate America. I would
be proud to defend my choice to accept campaign contibutions from
corporate america. Corporations are the people. I would defend Microsoft
and such companies that are under attack and desperatly need their
views put forward.would Al Gore feel the same about defending accepting
contributions from China would he openly wear a Chinese flag? If
he would, would he get elected?I would not force people to wear
patches but the website Idea would do. Bush did the best at disclosure
of anyone I know. however, I might get attached to the patch and
want to wear it anyway.this is a free market system and self regulating
by the voters and I feel that the supreme court would have a hard
time finding a problem with unlimited, public knowlege contributions.
we have a liberal endorcment and he is right if the people think
they are bought and sold by contrary intrests then they will vote
against them. I feel that the more money the better. we need to
get the people informed this is so critical. As I have always felt
democracy is neither good or bad outside of an informed people.
People have praised the orderly transitions that follow from democracy.
but democracy Killed Socrates! we as a people can chose to shut
our ears. We must stand up for the first amendment! The liberals
and the ACLU think the first Amendment is theirs. We need to be
thr ones lifting up the first amendment. Are we going to let Socrates
be killed? we need to fight McCain-Feingold all the way. I think
Bush should beat him to it with the Bush-Kilborn bill.
-Thad
* * *
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
The only acceptable reform to myself would be one
that also includes UNIONS!!! and other NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS!!!!
Any other version would leave a wide playing field for those organizations
to influence votes with no opposition. That situation would create
one worse than what we have now. The mailings unions sent to their
members this past election were an outrage.
Inge McCaughey
* * *
Campaign Finance Reform
What is "an elite class uniquely qualified
to govern?" I would really like to know.The definition seems
to be whoever promises everything to everyone. It seems that's what
it takes to get the money (and votes) you need to get elected.The
problem with that is,you end up with someone who does nothing because
he doesn't want to offend his contributors.Meanwhile, you have someone
who really wants to do some good, has some good ideas, but doesn't
have the money for a campaign.He winds up compromising his positions
in order to get money.The problem with that is, those who contribute
want something for their money.That's why we have government the
way it is.How do we fix that? That is what campaign finance reform
,in my opinion, is all about.
Larry in PA
* * *
Relative to discussions on BIG Government and its
invasion/intrution on our lives, I wanted to point out an excellent
article written by Tom Krannawitter, director of academic programs
at the Claremont (CA) Institute and Ben Boychuk, managing editor
of the Claremont Review of Books. They wrote the piece for the LA
Times. I cut it out of the HARTFORD, CT Courant. The title:McCain-Feingold
Isn't Progress, It's Progressivism. This article, I believe, sums
up all the discussion you've had from campaign finance to the current
budget surplus vs. the "mythical" social security lock
box/trust fund. It states that "Progressives" have been
fighting the Constitution for a century. "Limited Government
can neither regulate our lives nor redistribute wealth in the name
of "social justice." It further states that great strides
were made under Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. "The
more Government regulates Americans, the more Americans need to
influence those regulations. And there is the RUB." "Reformers"
are above all Progressives, and they are enemies of what is left
of our constitutional government." Excellent article which
points out the big picture and what's really at stake in American
Politics today.
Best Regards and continue keeping us informed................
Jim Burke
Killingworth, CT
* * *
I am one of your listeners who can honestly say
that I was thinking of some type of "campaign reform"
long before even John McCain brought it to the forefront. I agree
with you that the current "reforms" the Congress is debating
indeed do bludgeon first amendment rights. My solution - which is
in no way complete and which may in part sound elitist - would include
the following elements for all presidential, gubernatorial, senatorial
and federal congressional elections:
Any INDIVIDUAL may donate as much as s/he wants
to any candidate. (The amount and receiver must be disclosed immediately
to some centralclearing house which anyone may access)
Any INDIVIDUAL may take out ads advocating whatever
positions s/hewishes. (The amount spent to prepare and air an ad
as well as the individual behind the ad must be disclosed immediately
to some central clearing house which anyone may access. This same
info would be made a part of said ad.
Any voluntary ad hoc group of individuals may take
out ads advocating whatever positions the wish. (The amount spent
to prepare and air an ad as well as the individuals behind the ad
must be disclosed immediately to some central clearing house which
anyone may access. This same info would be made a part of said ad.
Every certified candidate for a given race (certification
would be anyone whose name will be on an official ballot) would
be required to issue comprehensive position paper(s) on whatever
topic(s) he or she deems important to the given race. Position papers
would be published in the the print media within the candidate's
specific constituency* as well as on the internet.
*That is, the presidential candidates positions
would be published unedited in all major newspapers; gubernatorial
candidates would have their position papers published by all the
major papers in their respective states, etc.
Every certified candidate for a given race (certification
would be anyone whose name will be on an official ballot)during
said race would be required to SPEAK on TV and radio, periodically,
for segments of AT LEAST 15 minutes preferably a half an hour, each,
on whatever topics s/he deems important to that given race. These
types of appearances would have no limit.
The networks would be required to sell this time
to any certified candidate who has the money.
The number of spot TV ads would be closely controlled
so that no onecandidate could have a SPOT ad appearing on TV or
radio more than three times a day.
The main thrust of these "reforms" is
that:-money from corporations, unions PAC's, whether soft or hard.would
be banned - only individuals would be allowed to give to candidates.
-candidates would be "forced" to address
issues rather than issue emotional 45 second sound bites which inform
and educate no one.
None of the above precludes debates and interviews
by third parties such as yourself. Well that is what I have been
thinking for a long time.
Ciao amico!!
Teresa
* * *
NY Times Buries $476,000 in Dem Fines
From another Republican list:
"The Federal Election Commission disclosed yesterday it has
imposed a record-setting $719,000 in fines against participants
in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions
from China, Korea and other foreign sources." (Washington Post,
Sept. 21, 2002)
"Democrats Are Fined $243,000 for Fund-Raising
Violations." (New York Times, Sept. 21, 2002)
If you believe the Times banner line, the fines
levied against the Democrats were a whopping $476,000 lower than
reported by the Post, which was, after all, telling its readers
what the Federal Election Commission disclosed to them ... and the
Times and, for that matter, the whole world.
If you scroll down - way down - in the story, the
Times' Richard Oppel Jr. manages to report the total fines the Post
reports were levied against the "Democratic National Committee,
the Clinton-Gore campaign, the Buddhist temple and nearly two dozen
people and corporations acting as conduits for illegal contributions."
"The documents detail efforts by the Democratic
Party and the Clinton-Gore campaign to build their war chest with
help from wealthy Asian donors before the 1996 election. In all,
the election commission disclosed $719,500 in fines today,"
the Times finally admits.
The trick behind the misleading lead was simply
to focus solely on the Democrat National Committee and the Clinton-Gore
campaign and leave out the fines imposed on the stooges. Note the
"in all" as if the other groups fined had nothing to do
with the Democratic Party or the egregiously corrupt Clinton-Gore
campaign it was in bed with.
That's how the once-respected New York Times reports
the news under Howell Raines, liberal Times editor and Democratic
Party shill.
