Campaign Finance Proposal

[Owlet]

This idea, combined with the Stave the Beast idea might actually result in something positive. Not likely, but one can always dream.

"Under Mr. Lessig’s proposed plan every voting-age adult would receive a $50 voucher from the federal government (an idea similar to the “patriot dollars” advocated by the Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman and colleagues in 2003) that could only be used to contribute to qualified candidates for federal office. To be eligible, the candidate would agree to finance his or her campaign entirely with vouchers and private contributions of $100 or less from individuals in the candidate’s home state.

In Mr. Lessig’s view this system would be so attractive to candidates that it would crowd out the existing corrupt system, with no need to impose prohibitions or restrictions that conservatives view as violating free speech. He also estimates it would raise as much or more money than currently floods into campaigns.

His strongest argument undermines conservative demands for the complete deregulation of campaign finance. A system with no restraints empowers “capitalists to corrupt capitalism,” he contends. “So long as wealth can be used to leverage political power, wealth will be used to leverage political power to protect itself” against free market competition — the very system capitalists are pledged to support."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/books/republic-lost-campaign-finance-reform-book-review.html?_r=1&ref=books

[osage]

1. How much influence does money really buy?

I am a registered Democrat and have always believed that monied interests can buy favorable decisions from lawmakers who must skirt corruption, bribery laws. However, today 10 August 2012 in writing an opinion article for the local newspaper it was necessary to check some facts I wanted to include. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! It appears there is no correlation between the final vote on a bill and the source of funds received in a campaign.

It is recognized that this is a highly emotional topic and one in which we must all seek truth and not be swayed by rhetoric or emotion. If any reader can point to a reputable source proving the alleged connection between campaign contributions and favorable political influence please let me know. I am most open.

Here are two sources I have found that state there is no connection:
1. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CampaignFinance.html
2. https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/3588/fulltext.pdf

I found these two with a minimum of effort which makes me think that perhaps the hulabaloo about buying influence is a myth. Certainly worth more research.

[Shagman]

3. Are You Serious??

Here's a study on direct correlation between legislative success and who benefits from that legislation. Don't tell me that's accidental.

Princeton study

There's also the occasional confession from former Congresspeople, the ones who don't go directly into the private sector for their own turn at the trough.

Finally, there's a little thing I like to call common sense. Corporations don't give money to politicians out of civic duty, they expect a return on their investment. It can be a very profitable investment too.

And let's not forget ALEC, one of the best examples I know for getting money OUT of politics.

[NGNM85]

2. Compelling Proposal

It's not an understatement to say that overturning Citizens' is the most vital issue facing the American Left, today. Prof. Lessig presents the most cogent, and clear diagram of how to do that.

[rdeg99]

4. Take the money off the table......

No amount of money will persuade me in this election. There is no way I will vote for the "ENTITLED" Mitt Romney. So my part in this election will be to do an absentee ballot as soon as possible and remove money from the equation. If more would do this perhaps the "money people" would see the futility of investing in a loser like Romney.