Election & campaign finance reform: an idea

[Shankapotomus]

I'm just hypothesizing here, so humor me.

What if instead of being allowed to accept contributions to finance their political campaigns, once they were officially registered in an election, all local, state a national candidates, had one .gov website to go to to submit their platform, positions on issues, record and responses to opponents that voters would be directed to with public service announcements? Each candidate would be given the same amount of space to make their case, post videos, etc, and that's it. No pumping money into advertising, no bus tours, nothing that requires outside or even your own funding.

I know some will say that's an infringement of free speech but there already exist special cases where the infringement of free speech is allowed precisely because these are special situations. Like when a judge orders the two parties and jury not to discuss a court case because it could jeopardize and poison the proceedings.

Or when one joins the military there are all sorts of restrictions put on ones freedom.

What if we also considered elections a special case where once a person officially registers as a candidate, some their freedoms regarding speech are temporarily suspended and are restored once the election is over or the drop out of the race?

In other words, it is not a forced suspension of ones free speech but they must comply with the rule if they choose to voluntarily participate in an election as a candidate?

One website. Public service announcements. No private advertising. No bus tours. Voters will be directed to one .gov website to review the candidates. All other rules for qualifying as a candidate would remain the same, including obtaining the appropriate number of signatures.

Appearences on tv and news shows would be allowed but money would not be allowed to exchange hands.

What do ya think?

[taterguy]

1. I think that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard

[Shankapotomus]

3. Lol. Okay where did I go wrong?

It's early so maybe I'm not thinking straight. Where's my error?

How are you going to get the money out otherwise when constitutional lawyers are equating money to free speech?

[taterguy]

4. First of all, Internet access isn't as universal as you think

Just because you spend a lot of time on the Internet, it doesn't mean everyone else does.

A campaign conducted solely on the Internet would deprive countless people of basic information.

[Shankapotomus]

5. I knew I forgot to address something

Usually a local library will have public Internet access these days. And for those like the elderly and disabled alternate means for aquainting themselves with candidates could be substituted.

It's seems you probably have more issues with this idea than just that so I'm not assuming this one suggestion would fix it for you.

There of course would still be debates on tv and radio if that's what you're concerned about. Candidates don't have to fund those so there's no problem with tv debates or appearing on tv if a news channel invites a candidate, which they usually do.

And aren't tv appearences how most people get to know their candidate anyway? That wouldn't be banned. Just advertising, campaign donations, the activities where the big money is used. The point is to remove the donors to candidates who then expect favors later.

[taterguy]

6. Live contact with politicians is essential for democracy

Your proposal would leave pols sealed off in environments they can control.

I like to see how politicians react to unscripted situations, which is an essential part of the job they're seeking.

[Shankapotomus]

8. If you really think that's essential

(though I do not), each candidate could engage in strictly limited and publically funded interactions with voters. But they couldn't be privately funded and no candidate would be allowed more time or access to voters than any other.

But I think that's really stretching what is necessary since the majority of voters never meet their candidates in person and still vote. It's just not logistically possible or realistic.

Pardon me but your suggestion sounds like unnessessary line drawing. Am I wrong?

[bigtree]

7. what about money for travel and appearances?

Renting space and arranging transportation? I can remember a time where these candidates didn't try and appeal in every state. To a great extent, many states and regions get left out of the election's political process. I think the Democratic primary was a remarkable exception where almost every state felt they had a public say and a personal appeal from the candidates. That takes bucks.

[Shankapotomus]

9. Some may object to the idea

of using the Internet to remedy the problem but the fact is there are 239,893,600 Internet users as of June/10, 77.3% of the U.S. population. The percentage of Americans who voted in the last presidential election was only 63%.

So switching election activity to a publically run and funded website I don't think would hurt voter turnout since less people vote already than those who have Internet access.

But what it would do is get the money out of politics which is the whole point.

Plus nothing keep a candidate from making a personal appeal to a state via the Internet through a video or whatever.

I just think this making a personal appearance an absolute nessesity and deal breaker when the majority of voters never meet their candidate seems a little fasicious.

[JCMach1]

10. Fact: 30% of America never uses the Internet

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/almost-a-third-of-americans-still-dont-use-the-net.ars


Therein lies the problem.

[Shankapotomus]

11. So what if we miss out on 30%

of the voting population?

The fact is voter turnout already rarely cracks 50%.

Stats: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

And again, my idea would not exclude television appearances and tv debates, which is how most voters get info on their candidates anyway.

This sticking point being thrown about this thread that it won't work because candidates have to engage in meet and greets when most voters never meet who they vote for as it is, seems like unnessessary line drawing to me.

[JCMach1]

12. from Pew

...Due to demographic differences between the two parties, McCain voters were actually more likely than Obama voters to go online in the first place. ... http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T6GvzrrbVRAJ:pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/6--The-Internets-Role-in-Campaign-2008.aspx+percentage+internet+users+by+political+party&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ae&client=firefox-a

Had to post the cached version.