On campaign contributions and lobbying
Aug. 9th, 2007 04:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cryowizardWe all know that politicians are bought and sold by special interests. No matter what party affiliation a politician is, someone is dropping that campaign contribution money into his/her "war chest", and that someone expects results to go a certain way once a politician is in office.
Now, I have a crazy idea. There are lots of details to be polished, but here it is in a nutshell: in order to prevent lobbying, finance federal elections from a federal budget. Sounds like another initiative that prolongs government waste, so prevalent in this country, doesn't it? But let's look at it closer.
1. Each contender gets an equal budget, say 50 million. (Small print -- there has to be a clause that says who is eligible for this and how). That way all contenders have an equal financial start.
2. Allocated budget is only available for EFTs, no cash withdrawals and funny stuff.
3. How they choose to direct that money is up to them, but of course, each penny of that money should be publicly tracked.
4. All hard and soft money donations from individuals, corporations, church groups and any other entities become illegal with severe civil or criminal penalties.
Wouldn't that reduce (I'm not hoping for removal) lobbying influence on politicians? If a Senator or President doesn't have to "bring the dough home" once elected, who knows, maybe he'll spend some time being useful to the country.
If you think 50M per candidate is a lot of money, consider the totals. Say we have 5 candidates in each big party's primaries, that's 500M, and say we're generous and give each primary winner another 50M to contend in national elections (say there are 5 parties). That's 750M total, once every four years, which is peanuts compared to tens of billions of tax dollars wasted on giving back to the contributors.
Or is this too crazy?
Now, I have a crazy idea. There are lots of details to be polished, but here it is in a nutshell: in order to prevent lobbying, finance federal elections from a federal budget. Sounds like another initiative that prolongs government waste, so prevalent in this country, doesn't it? But let's look at it closer.
1. Each contender gets an equal budget, say 50 million. (Small print -- there has to be a clause that says who is eligible for this and how). That way all contenders have an equal financial start.
2. Allocated budget is only available for EFTs, no cash withdrawals and funny stuff.
3. How they choose to direct that money is up to them, but of course, each penny of that money should be publicly tracked.
4. All hard and soft money donations from individuals, corporations, church groups and any other entities become illegal with severe civil or criminal penalties.
Wouldn't that reduce (I'm not hoping for removal) lobbying influence on politicians? If a Senator or President doesn't have to "bring the dough home" once elected, who knows, maybe he'll spend some time being useful to the country.
If you think 50M per candidate is a lot of money, consider the totals. Say we have 5 candidates in each big party's primaries, that's 500M, and say we're generous and give each primary winner another 50M to contend in national elections (say there are 5 parties). That's 750M total, once every four years, which is peanuts compared to tens of billions of tax dollars wasted on giving back to the contributors.
Or is this too crazy?
no subject
Date: 2007-08-14 03:50 am (UTC)But… I think there is a problem with this idea.
How do you enforce #4? And isn’t it unconstitutional? I mean anyone can give you 100 bucks. You don’t go to jail for that. Why candidates are different?
And it can get very tricky where all sorts of perks offered to you or you relatives indirectly. Because someone running for president doesn’t mean his brother can’t play golf on a trip to Scotland organized by a big corporation. It's a free country, right? ;-)
What are you going to do about it?
-LT
(no subject)
From: