And yet, I've heard that the money is only an indicator. Have you read "Freakonomics" yet?

Both sides play the game, of course. Doesn't make it right, or acceptable.

This is a sign that the government has way too much power.

Think about it: in order for people to bribe public officials, there must be something worth buying.

---------------

See my blog at scottgrizzard.com

The government has had too much power since about 1860. Of course, if they hadn't exercised that power, we'd probably be subjects of one european power or another.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." - James Madison.

We've been running nonstop for about 230 years. Nothing goes that long without developing a few kinks.

The only real solution is to implement reality-game style challenges to decide whether or not legislation will pass.

And just think, the American public would be entranced!


Wait, wait, I voted early today, I'm supposed to put the jaded card in my back pocket for the night. I'll remain the optimistic cynic, and diminish to the west.

Incidently, legislation that breaks the links between lobbyists and the Congress is scheduled for the first day of the next Congress, should the Dems take control, under (future) Speaker Pelosi's first 100 hours plan.

It's obvious that to break corporate control over Congress, we need public campaign financing. And free, equally-allotted use of our public airwaves for candidates during campaign season.

Some people balk at the idea of public campaign financing, saying that there's no way to pay for it without raising taxes.

And they're right.

We'll pay for it by electing officials who will enforce the tax laws that apply to these corporations, forcing them to pay their real share instead of letting them buy candidates who will look the other way while holding their hands out for campaign donations.

Best reform idea for the issues surrounding corporate donations: mandate anonymous donation.

Just as with voting by secret ballot, this would permit anybody to support whatever issue or candidate they want, but prevent the politicians from knowing who supported what.

Bad idea: because you can't mandate ananomous donations of time or other "in-kind" donations. This gives an advantage to groups that have legions of volunteers (like public unions), and disadvantages interests that have only money to bring to the table.

Besides that, you can't prevent people from proclaiming their support for a candidate, or prevent them from saying how they spent their money. To do so tramples on free speech.

I think this has less to do with democrat vs. republican this election and more to do with our current senate sucks. And it's not because of the democrats or the republicans, they all suck.

This is just adolescent nonsense. There are good people in Congress. Not everyone is a sleaze on the take and not everyone who takes money for a PAC immediately performs fellatio on them.

But here is the deal - told to me in person by Rep Chaka Fattah - one of the good ones - You don't want people taking money from corporations and special interests? Then you have to start writing checks yourself.

I think that one of the best reforms - aside from making the whole thing publicly financed, setting up cable access for candidates and denying any other public media (big first amendment issues here, I know) - would be to put an absolute, cumulative limit on all donations and then make them tax deductible. That would make an incentive for John or Jane Q to pony up and would also make it impossible for any entity to give more than say - 1,000 per calendar year.

yeah, there's actually a supreme court decision that equates free speech and money. i.e., the more money you have, the more "free" speech you're entitled to on the "public" airwaves.

The free speech issues are extremely difficult to get around - and like I wrote, even though donation limits to particular candidates can be restricted, there's no constitutional way that I can imagine to limit money donated to a PAC that advertises in favor or against a particular candidate. And as much as I'd like to clean up the money from politics, I don't think banning speech is the way to go about doing it, there has to be a better option.

That's why I think if a candidate were able to forego any large donations from any individuals, corporations or groups (ie. a strictly grassroots campaign) it would give them incredible leverage against an opponent who took money from whoever was offering. It's a sort of free-market solution; if voters are interested enough in a candidate who is pretty much immune to special interest considerations or favors they vote for that candidate (and presumably donate to them too,) thus commodifying freedom from influence and making it potentially more valuable than the donation dollars it's replacing. Of course, this seems like market driven idealism, my guess is that plenty of candidates would publicly claim that they weren't accepting money in increments larger than $20 or something and then figure out a way to funnel large cash donations to themselves in exchange for influence.

Which is only relevant if you believe that the advantage in influencing political decisions is equal between the two types of groups. Do you seriously propose that a group that can provide campaign volunteers has anywhere near the influence on a candidate's stances as a large corporate donor? If this is empirically true, then I would have no problem with limiting that, as well.

Nor can you prevent voters from doing the same regarding their votes. What you can do is use the equivalent of secret balloting, and prevent the kind of influence that comes from knowing exactly who tried to buy a candidate, and for how much.

I have no problem with free speech. But when were corporate donations ever "free?"

Buckley v. Valeo.

Two things. Although profits aren't always passed on to the worker or consumer, costs are always passed on to the consumer. Close corporate tax loopholes and you drive the price of whatever they're selling up. Corporate america is NEVER taxed. It's just indirect taxation of the consumer.

If donations were anonymous, you'd get a new situation. One corporation giving to a candidate or party, and ten claiming to have done so. Doesn't sound so bad to me. Dollars can only theorically "buy" influence when you can reasonably know who the purchaser was.
Say one hundred thousand dollars was given to the democrats by an anonymous doner. PETA, NRA, AND Ford Motor Company could all claim to have ponied it up. Initially, there may be a good reason to suspect NRA had nothing to do with such a donation, (after all, the two most dangerous women in america are, on paper at least, democrats, (I think clinton is whatever will get her elected. I don't know what pelosi really is,)) Now. Do you give your votes to Detroit or the bunny huggers?

In ten years? The cirsumstances get fuzzier. That's long enough for the "good guys" and the "bad guys" to switch places, again. I like the idea of anonymous donations, at least on the surface.

Now, in-kind donations are harder. Can you really tell anyone to keep their mouth shut about their beliefs without treading on their freedom of speech? If a group can bring in volunteers, is it the group donating or the individuals?