10 replies »

1. Outstanding…decouple private money from public office. Provide even footing for candidates, and get officeholders back into the business of representing their constituencies and out of the wheeling dealing money raising racket.

   The only worry I have is rich candidates trying to fund themselves, but I believe your syntax excludes that possibility.

2. I have argued repeatedly at S&R for significant increases in public election financing. I’ve gone so far as to recommend that Congress agree to underwrite the expenses of every statewide and national election in the country. Would it be cheap? Well, compared with what?

   What does our current dismal system cost? Stagnant growth of the middle class. Accelerated transfer of wealth upward arguably linked to that wealth underwriting elections. As long as the wealth of a very few outbids the rest of us for the attention and favors of Congress, we will remain mired in American un-exceptionalism.

   • Well said sir, there is a huge cost to willy nilly pork glued onto ever dibble and dribble of legislation oozing out of Foggy Bottom. It’s not efficient, it’s not logical, and it’s certainly not fair.

     One look at the IRS Tax Code should be enough to convince any doubters. Rather than a well oiled representative democracy we seem to be devolving into a Russian Black Market Bazaar where everything and anything can be had at a price and the only rule is there are no rules.

     I see my party is now talking about shaving $40 billion off the SNAP (food stamps) budget. We make bankers and investment houses whole while children go to bed hungry.
     I can not begin to describe the rage that wells up in me over this sort of cruel piracy.

3. This is great, but how to approach the “free speech” aspect? You know, as in, “I want to print up 5,000 flyers on a candidate I endorse, and you have no right to tell me I can’t.” And that could be extended to commercials also. And the internet.

   • Of all the ways in which various parties would attempt to end-run the amendments in TNC, this is one that’s at the very top. Yes, citizens have the right to free speech, and that would extend to things like blogs and other forms of individual communication. Would the Koch Brothers seek to print a zillion flyers or set up their own very well-financed site? Very likely.

     This is a spot where various rights potentially conflict, and it is not unanticipated. It will eventually fall to the legislature and courts to draw the boundaries, and my guess is that the best way of approaching it is first make sure that we distinguish between an individual and a person who has incorporated him/herself. Beyond that, it probably boils down to something like the limit on individual donations to a candidate we have right now.

4. I have to wonder if the “contribute directly to” will be enough to keep big business from “loaning” their chosen candidates the use of office space, automobiles, aircraft, stadiums, etc. that the little guys would have to pay for out of the budgets they have from their public funding if they were to get the same usage?

   • Hmmm. Good question.

5. As the resident S&R big business guy, I will guarantee you my sort will find a way.

   • I guess we could always nationalize everything. Worked for the Soviets.

6. Pingback: The New Constitution – Progressive Culture | Scholars & Rogues