8 thoughts on “Campaign Finance Reform”

1. Nice job, David.  The SCOTUS has ruled that money equals free speech.  I don’t think they have ruled that it, in turn, has an inherent right to privacy.

   So full, open disclosure of contributions is the best protection against corruption and undue influence of money in campaigns.

   I particularly like the notion of including the tag line in the ads when a certain percentage threshold is crossed (much like SEC requirements for stockholders owning a similar percentage of shares which warns companies of attempted hostile takeovers).

   Now all we need is George Soros to buy up all the votes so we can get our Congress to pass this legislation 😉

   Log in to Reply

   1. Do people have to be of voting age to contribute as individuals?  (And if the answers are no, how would this prevent bundling and funneling money through non-disclosed individuals?).  i.e.  ‘Bill Koch, Jr. , grade school student’

      I also don’t get this part, and how the rest follows:

      The best is having the candidates spend it directly. That “I’m candidate X and I support this message” has constrained what is placed in candidate ads. And they are held directly accountable.

      Second best is having the parties spend it. They also are held accountable for what they say which constrains them a bit.

      Specifically, I don’t think you can prohibit individuals (and now, corporations) from ‘independent’ campaigns–SCOTUS says its protected speech.

      I do favor better disclosure, and like the steps you propose, but that is really only part of the problem.  The sheer, and exponentially increasing, amount of money in the race–and the endless campaigns such engender–are a larger part, IMO.

      Which is why I support both contribution limits and public financing where viable candidates have to show a certain threshold for popular support, but are then funded at basically equal levels, in a shortened cycle.

      That wouldbn’t prevent independent expenditures, or candidates running on their own dimes, or opting out of the pf system altogether, but I think its more comprehensive than just better disclosure, and there are ways to incentivize participating in the system.

      There are always paths around campaign finance laws–including corrupt agenda-driven SoS’s.  Money, like water in Colorado, can flow uphill–if the powers want it to.  Its like a water balloon, squeeze it one place and it bulges out in another.  I think incentivizing public campaigns, having a shortened campaign season, and better disclosure are all needed.  

      Of course we probably need a few new Justices first…

      Log in to Reply

      1. Just that we want to encourage money going to the candidates where we can.

         Log in to Reply

         1. I don’t understand your argument for this. Why is this something “we” want to encourage?  

            Log in to Reply

      2. Having to provide the name of the person giving the money (even if they are an infant serving as a strawman) and their employer, isn’t a burdensome requirement.

         It may not immediately stop attempts at campaign contribution abuse, but would be valuable for later analysis, and if appropriate, prosecution.  And it would be a deterent for many would-be abusers of the political process.

         And even if unfettered giving of billions to campaigns is completely legal, at least we will know who bought our representatives, which is useful information as well.

         Log in to Reply

         1. and I think Dave has some good ideas (I like the contributors.campaign.org link idea as a tag on all ads, and requiring CEOs, etc. to state who they are on ads above a certain threshold).  But I don’t think disclosure alone is enough.  

            Log in to Reply

            1. People like the Koch Brothers will hate the transparency. But they might take it in return for the removal of the limits.

               And I figure since limits don’t work, trade away something that doesn’t work for something that will have an impact.

               Log in to Reply

2. It was blocked by Republicans.

   Next attempt at rational yet unattainable solutions?

   (PS – I don’t think encouraging campaigns to take direct contributions from corporations is any kind of laudable goal; it would further blur the line between bribery and campaigning to the point where it would be almost impossible to prosecute.  Just MHO.)

   Log in to Reply