these buckets of money the leading candidates are raising?

[leftofthedial]

It's a BAD thing. Not a good thing.

Until we get private money and this kind of insititutionalized bribery out of politics, we'll never get back control of our government.

[bryant69]

1. I agree

I mean I understand being pleased that your candidate is winning the money race. Regardless of how we wish politics were, we have to play the game as it is played now. But we shouldn't forget how monumentally screwed up the game is currently.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[leftofthedial]

15. how do we change it?

the elitists we continue putting in power will never change it . . .

[Deep13]

17. Don't know.

As far as I can tell, it has never been done.

[leftofthedial]

23. as far as I can tell

no real reform has ever been brought forward by either party

the repukes championed "term limits" while Democrats were most of the imcumbents, but changed their tune once they gained power.

[bryant69]

38. Well I favor continuing to fight for change without giving up

There have been experiments with publicly funded campaigns - New Mexico if Memory serves (and I don't trust my memory all that much). Keep pushing for continual reform.

Bastards will always find a way to game the system, so you keep fixing it. Perpetual reform.

Bryant

[RedEarth]

39. Bill Moyers suggested this............

..... and I agree 100% with him.......

Saving Democracy

by Bill Moyers

....snip.....

The cost of running for public office is skyrocketing. In 1996, $1.6 billion was spent on the Congressional and Presidential elections. Eight years later, that total had more than doubled, to $3.9 billion.

Thanks to our system of privately financed campaigns, millions of regular Americans are being priced out of any meaningful participation in democracy. Less than one half of one percent of all Americans made a political contribution of $200 or more to a federal candidate in 2004. When the average cost of running and winning a seat in the House of Representatives has topped one million dollars, we can no longer refer to that August chamber as “The People’s House.” If you were thinking of running for Congress, do you have any idea where you would get the money to be a viable candidate?

At the same time that the cost of getting elected is exploding beyond the reach of ordinary people, the business of gaining access to and influence with our elected Representatives has become a growth industry. Six years ago, in his first campaign for President, George W. Bush promised he would “restore honor and integrity” to the government. Repeatedly, during his first campaign for President, he would raise his right hand and, as if taking an oath, tell voters that he would change how things were done in the nation’s capitol. “It’s time to clean up the toxic environment in Washington, DC,” he would say. His administration would ask”not only what is legal but what is right, not what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves.”

Hardly.

Since Bush was elected the number of lobbyists registered to do business in Washington has more than doubled. That’s 16,342 lobbyists in 2000 to 34,785 last year. Sixty-five lobbyists for every member of Congress.

The amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by nearly one hundred percent in that same period, according to The Washington Post, going up to anything from $20,000 to $40,000 a month. Starting salaries have risen to nearly $300,000 a year for the best-connected people, those leaving Congress or the administration.

The total spent per month by special interests wining, dining, and seducing federal officials is now nearly $200 million. Per month.

...........

California may soon follow Connecticut. Calling for the political equivalent of electroshock therapy, the Los Angeles Times recently urged Californians: “Forget half-measures. The cure is voluntary public financing of election campaigns.” Already the Clean Money and Fair Elections Bill has passed the state assembly and is headed for the senate. Check it out at www.caclean.org .

Think about this: Californians could buy back their elected representatives at a cost of about $5 or $6 per California resident. Nationally we could buy back our Congress and the White House with full public financing for about $10 per taxpayer per year. You can check this out on the website Public Campaign. <www.publicampaign.org >

Public funding won’t solve all the problems. There’s no way to legislate truly immoral people from abusing our trust. But it would go a long way to breaking the link between big donors and public officials and to restoring democracy to the people. Until we offer qualified candidates a different source of funding for their campaigns – “clean,” disinterested, accountable public money – the selling of America will go on. From scandal to scandal.



http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0224-20.htm

[leftofthedial]

43. $10 a head

and we can't find a way to make it happen?

I think it's time to start over.

[depakid]

60. Two ways

One would be a Constitutional Amendment (or Amendments)

The other- which may require the former- might be through vigorous enforcement of a strong set of rules like the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time provisions.

I doubt that either will happen, which is why I'm not optimistic about America's future.

[Deep13]

2. It is a system that feeds on itself.

We cannot restore democracy until big money is out of politics. We can't change the system until our people get elected. They can't get elected without big money. Once elected they are beholding to those providing the big money and cannot realistically make any changes.

[leftofthedial]

12. so is revolution the only answer?

:shrug:

[Deep13]

13. ================

The subject line contains the ten foot pole with which I am not going to touch that question.

Be nice if the public woke up and simply refused to be influenced by the media blitz.

[druidity33]

36. Kucinich? nt

[leftofthedial]

48. congress would have to change campaign law

and the courts would have to overrule the false premise that money (donated) is a form of free speech and that corporations have the same rights as people

[druidity33]

55. nonetheless

Kooch is the only one i've heard talk about SERIOUS campaign finance changes. Also one of the few that's willing to root for Medicare for all instead of single-payer Health Ins.

:shrug:

[mudesi]

54. The vicious cycle of money to the media and media to the money

Candidates raise enormous amounts of money to buy television ads. The media that profits from those ads then uses its power to influence millions to keep politicians from reforming campaign financing, and it goes on and on.

[AndyA]

3. K & R.

This is the major thing wrong with politics today.

We need to get the private money out of the campaigns.

We MUST get the private money out of the campaigns. The best people for the job aren't running, because they can't afford to run!

[leftofthedial]

19. how?

[AndyA]

33. I think there's going to have to be a grass roots movement to force

elected reps to put legislation in place that does away with privately funded elections.

The corruption and coercion alone in the current system should be reason enough to do it.

[leftofthedial]

35. do you think that is more or less important than

getting "out" of Iraq

the class war

the collapsing American economy

health care

global climate change

-fill in the blank-

??

[AndyA]

37. Honestly, I think some of those things you listed won't happen until we get decent representation.

Here's the order I would prioritize your list:

getting "out" of Iraq - 1

the class war - 4*

the collapsing American economy - 2

health care - 3

global climate change - 5*

Explanation:

I would end the war in Iraq. That can be done relatively quickly, and would prevent further troop loss.

Our economy must be corrected, we cannot continue as we are for long, and having good jobs and a growing employment base is critical to constructive growth in America, which will enable us to provide health care and other critical support.

Americans need health care, which should include enhanced care for our troops returning home from the war with debilitating injuries.

I don't see an end to global warming and the class war until we get better people in office. Most of the people currently in office have had years to do something about these issues, but haven't. Why not? They are part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

JMO...for what it's worth.

[JackRiddler]

4. -yes- (kr)

[undeterred]

5. I heard that Bush spent $367M and Kerry spent $327M in 2004

This narrows the playing field to such a small number of people who have enough money to begin with and who have the stomach to do this kind of work on top of it. Its an enormous amount of money, even for people like Bush and Kerry.

We've created a monster.

[leftofthedial]

16. capitalism is the monster

unregulated, it corrupts everything

[loudsue]

62. I'm with you on that. Unregulated capitalism is totalitarian fascism waiting to happen.

I think heavily regulated capitalism is a fine thing for many people, and with a social Democracy, probably one of the best systems for the majority of people. To have a really good capitalist system, however, corporations CANNOT be treated as "persons" by the law. Changing just that ONE piece of our legal system can correct several of the problems.

But I'm totally with you...capitalism is the monster when it is unregulated.

:kick:

[donkeyotay]

6. They auction off our representation on nitwork teevee

They never ask who "our" candidates are beholden to. They never mention the cost of teevee coverage, or the absolutely corrupt role the corporate media plays in selecting who we may select from. And yes the system is a closed loop. Whichever candidate/party "wins" they will maintain the status quo, with television's help. This ain't democracy. Everyone can look around and see how broken it is, but nothing of substance ever gets done for the nation. Meanwhile, the privatization digs us ever deeper into bankruptcy.

[mike_c]

7. best response I've read today....

I wish I could recommend your comments.

[leftofthedial]

9. it's the plutocracy stupid

They sell us the President the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire

[loudsue]

63. Can I recommend that post?? It truly is totally broken.

:kick:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

8. You're correct

When the financial reigns are being held by entities which we the people cannot compete with we lose. We've become a redundancy in the process of financing candiates, and in doing so have lost much of the power that the American people were supposed to wield over our elected leaders.

[leftofthedial]

14. this is the "shadow government" we hear about

it's not necessarily a cabal of mysterious conspirators


it's the free market. capitalism insidiously and perpetually trumping its one true rival, democracy.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

40. It's all about profits at any cost

It has to be fixed but I fail to see how we can influence elections enough to place people in office who honestly want it fixed.

[The2ndWheel]

10. Money will always find a way in

The centralizing process of governments and corporations can't survive without it finding a way. Not only will money find a way in, there will be even more money in 2012. More in 2016, more in 2020. A dip in 2024? No. Only an increase.

[leftofthedial]

11. That is the capitalist lie . . .

more and more and more forever always.

But of course it is not true. There are limits to how much money there will be in politics. Money is a finite resource--HUGE, but finite.

Effective regulation is entirely possible. Many other countries have strict limits on campaigns, both their duration and financing. Other countries have effective regulation of bribery and influence peddling.

Once again, I conclude that Capitalism is the root problem.

[The2ndWheel]

24. "Effective regulation is entirely possible."

Only if you have the increasing amounts of money to act, react, and counteract every attempt made by big money to get in.

"Many other countries have strict limits on campaigns, both their duration and financing. Other countries have effective regulation of bribery and influence peddling."

I have a theory on that. That's because they're not spending their tax money on the military. But, they're not spending it on the military because the US does. The US military is the global police force. Nobody listens to the UN unless it's backed up by a military force, and that force is the US military.

The reason those other countries don't have to spend the money on the military is that their interests are the same as our interests. The dead empires of the past no longer have to secure their own resources.

Just a theory anyway. Could be wrong. I'm not bragging by the way. The US military is an imperial force, and "our" soldiers are nothing more than agents of the state. I'd get rid of standing armies, in a perfect world.

"There are limits to how much money there will be in politics. Money is a finite resource--HUGE, but finite."

Agreed. When the system runs out of wealth generating resources, that's the limit. Of course if that happens, we have bigger problems than who raises what in an election cycle.

"Once again, I conclude that Capitalism is the root problem."

Well, yeah, whatever one wishes to call it, the consolidation and centralization of power is at the heart.

Still, there will be more money raised in 2012 than 2008.

[Greyhound]

18. An outright ban on private funding and regulated campaigns are certainly possible

and would go a long way toward fixing the system of legalized bribery we have now.

[leftofthedial]

21. which of the ampowered, elitist "leaders"

who have already mastered the corrup system


will vote to eliminate the system that enriches and empowers them?

I just don't see it happening. Neither party has even suggested a legitimate campaign reform idea in my lifetime.

[Greyhound]

42. You're absolutely right, I never said it would happen, only that it is

possible. If you make all private money illegal in campaigns with correspondingly tough sentences, I don't see how it can get in. But you're right,"the master's tools will never destroy the master's house".

[Greyhound]

50. and that is the problem we face. Our power has been usurped by the

ruling class and the only way we're getting it back is to start openly fighting them and to take it. As Warren Buffet said (see actual quote my sig line), we are already in a class war, the problem is that only one side is fighting it.

We must always remember that they need us, we don't need them. Believe me, they are always aware of this fact, and that's the only thing that has, so far, kept the tanks off the streets.

[The2ndWheel]

28. What has ever been banned outright and worked?

Regulate to the heart's content, you'll just need more regulation over time. When those regulations are broken, you'll need more regulation. Etc.

I'm not saying don't regulate. Hell, might as well try to ban it. Money will eventually find a way in somehow, and the cycle won't stop.

[Spike89]

45. I'd like it, but I don't think so...

My first thought when hearing "regulated campaigns" is--who regulates them? Same with the ban on private funding--who decides who can get public funding? My second thoughts run into the conflict between essential freedoms and regulated campaigns. Obviously we're concerned about how early the '08 elections are beginning, but geez, even some sure-fire candidates aren't "officially" candidates. What is the difference between a potential candidate giving a rousing speech to serve the country and giving the same speech to win a vote? For instance, remember Al Gore speaking about the Iraq war? Could a regulated campaign law have made it illegal for Gore to discuss that and then later speak about global warming(he could potentially run again in the future)?
I hate that huge money has so much to do with getting into office, but we've got to be extremely careful how we try and fix things. In the near/mid term future, this might not be as big a problem. Money always helps, but the Internet is pretty good at disseminating information. It is possible that even a poorly funded politician with a great message could get through the maze, or at least I hope so.

[Greyhound]

49. The who is the legislature (again, we are talking hypothetically because those

that have to implement the regulation are those that would object the most strongly to it). A strict campaign period, I'd say 90 - 120 days is plenty of time to get your message across.

Who gets it is everybody that runs for office. Since we have prohibited all private funds from all campaigns, there is no option. Each office gets the same set amount to use in any way the campaigns want to, the amounts received are determined by the office sought, a house seat gets less because the congressperson has a smaller audience to reach, a senate seat has to reach the whole state so would get more, etc.

The publicly licensed television and radio stations have a set number of spots that they are required to run within specified times for the local and national campaigns (this eliminates the problems of partiality and the single largest expense any campaign faces).

As for the Gore hypothetical you pose, I don't see that it would be a significant problem. We've already defined the campaign season and if the potential candidates want to start working their asses off on various projects for various causes in order to mask the promotion of their coming campaign, well at least they're doing something positive (depending on individual POV) while trying to influence the coming campaign, and the voters would easily see through it anyway.

We could see things develop like Al Gore spending years talking about global warming to pave the way for his campaign, or maybe we could see Fred Thompson doing commercials for Sturm Ruger prior to his, but how likely do you think it would be that that would have much influence? General Motors isn't going to drop 10s of millions of advertising dollars so that the Senator from Detroit can make campaign speeches.

[newyawker99]

57. Hi Spike89!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[stillcool]

20. where does all the money go...

or are elections just another money-making industry?
Television advertising is the only expenditure I've heard about that eats up these wads of cash. So when election season rolls around....which seems all the time...are the networks, or the same global corporate owners once again raking in the big bucks?

[leftofthedial]

22. candidates keep the money they don't spend

the democrats give large sums to the republican operatives who put "Democratic Campaign Consultant" on their business cards

[stillcool]

25. nice work if you can get it...

"That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Get your money for nothin' get your chicks for free"
Dire Straits

[catmandu57]

26. A huge chunk of money goes to buy airtime

I think that commercials should be aired free and time balanced between the candidates, that would go a long way to stop the gravy train.

[leftofthedial]

29. money is not free speech

corporations are not people

lobbyists are not constituents



federal campaigns should be limited to 60 days. all media campaigning should be limited to free, scheduled programs.

[mnhtnbb]

31. FOX (Rupert Murdoch), GE, Disney, Sinclair will be the big winners for ads

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. First John Edwards has a big house...

then Barack Obama raises a bunch of money.

ZOMG, it's like the Gilded Age robber barons!!!!1!!























:spray:

:rofl:

[TheWraith]

30. That's nice. Now go find something else to be unhappy about, and quit hassling us normals. NT.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. It's just the Godfathers doing "favors" for the politicians.

No strings attached, of course. They're just being generous and idealistic.


:sarcasm:

[mdmc]

34. It is a good thing for corporate America

If you took away donations from people that earn over 100,000... took away corporate bribes, you would have a different picture.

All this money comes from the same place = the rich.

[blues90]

41. I agree it's a bad deal .

I have heard talk about campaign financing reform for many years now and what happens , they continue to ignore this and the bar is raised higher and higher every election .

This only enables the corporate america to hold onto it's power over the people . TV adds used to be free but now that the media is owned by a few huge corporations money changes hands , builds up their power even more and we all lose in the end .

Just the fact that both parties accept this practice and never bring it up as being wrong and unfair and one sided is one of the main reasons I don't trust any of the candidates running right now .

They have to know what they are doing is NOT in the best interests of the majority of the population yet not a word is uttered and all is assumed normal , rashional practice . Bastards they are . Living in their protective pampered bubbles .

[blues90]

44. seems there alot of people on DU who

are watching the funding battle as if it's a baseball game with the score , why not place bets and send the money to feed the homeless ?

It's a sad situation when money trumps all as it has always been .

When you really think about it money is used to trade for services but the catch is it also equals power , sort of got out of hand . You really have to wonder how the masses allowed the few to get away with this for so damn long because it plays into everything .

[leftofthedial]

52. capitalism is a monster

it will destroy everything--people, life, the very planet

[porphyrian]

46. As long as our government can be bought, most of us remain unrepresented. - n/t

[leftofthedial]

51. that's a fact

Capitalism couldn't defeat democracy, so it bought it, corrupted it and sold it to the highest bidder, which ain't the people

[porphyrian]

53. Capitalism didn't try to defeat democracy, corporatism did.

You silly lefty, you.
;)

[leftofthedial]

56. Corporatism, Capitalism

Yankees, Baseball

republicans, fascism

silly lefty, fascism

[porphyrian]

58. Yeah, I'm oppressing you.

Private ownership is neither good nor evil in and of itself. When humanity is put before profit, capitalism is pretty damn good. You'd throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we've already had this argument.

[leftofthedial]

59. when humanity is put before profit

it ain't capitalism anymore. you can take that to every board meeting of every corporation in America.

[porphyrian]

61. You can believe whatever you like, but you can't redefine words for everyone else.

Capitalism is simply a system of private ownership of property. What has happened with the American experiment with capitalism is that corporatists have successfully used the system for their own gain. However, that doesn't mean capitalism has failed, or that this experiment has redefined the word.

[pigpickle]

47. kick

[loudsue]

64. Gawd! Reading this thread, I only end up wishing KUCINICH could actually be elected.

He would straighten out SO much of what is wrong with this country!! :cry:

But he's stuck in the same "system" we're dealing with, where the cream can never rise to the top...only the crooks & enablers.

:kick: