by ericlindquist » Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:15 pm
by Atanamis » Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:04 pm
by StCapps » Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:41 pm
StCapps wrote:And how does that stop the wealthy from giving to other people who haven't yet contributed to a campaign and have them donate money for them as a proxy? The wealthy can still easily get around a cap on individual donations it just means they have to cover up the real source of the donations.
Also wealthy individuals outside the US merely have to give money to proxies inside the US in order to get around number 1. This XXVIII amendment will fail to prevent a few super-rich individuals from being able to out-spend the mass of small contributors for these reasons.
Canada has a $1000 cap on individual donations to federal political parties and wealthy groups and individuals get around that useless law rather easily. Putting a cap on donations don't solve anything unfortunately.
by hondo69 » Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:00 am
by ericlindquist » Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:38 am
by hondo69 » Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:45 pm
by Dr. Strangelove » Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:54 pm
by Atanamis » Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:47 am
by Dr. Strangelove » Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:39 am
Atanamis wrote:So a legislator accepting donations from the UCLA wouldn't be able to vote on anything that affected civil liberties, and anyone who accepted donations from people owning stocks (anyone with a 401k) wouldn't be allowed to vote on anything involving corporations? Am I the only one who think Dan's idea is a poorly planned out pipe dream? And it DOES violate the premise that donations are a way of promoting free speech. With that assumption, it would be the equivalent of saying that politicians can't vote in any field involving people who have spoken in support of the politician.
If we are going to push things to this insane extreme, we would be far better off simply choosing our representatives at random from among the willing. Let anyone who would be willing apply for public office, and pick 1000 names from the hat at random. Those people are now the legislature. Executive positions are a separate category for which to be "willing", and we pick 10 names from the hat for each position. The randomly selected legislature picks which of the 10 get the position using approval voting. No campaigns mean no campaign contributions. The legislature of randomly selected people will statistically represent the whole of the American people quite well, and should retain the majority of the power. The executives simply implement the will of the people.
Pros: no campaigns, no professional politicians, less influence for money
Cons: we aren't able to pick "the best" to rule, but rather get the average guy. We have no direct control over our government
If we are going to give up on the idea that the average citizen will become informed enough to pick the right candidate though, random selection at least makes corruption more challenging.
by Atanamis » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:54 am
by Dr. Strangelove » Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:40 am
by ericlindquist » Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:59 pm
by Atanamis » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:05 pm
It is banning me from being able to support my interests. If I fund an "anti-war" candidate, the fact of my funding means that the candidate cannot vote on war measures. If I fund a "pro freedom of the press" candidate they aren't allowed to vote for anything relating to press. This is essentially the same as banning campaign finance altogether, since the fact of supporting a campaign means that representative is not permitted to represent YOU. In fact, the mere fact of being funded by an American citizen would logically prohibit the representative from voting for anything that benefits the United States of America. This is preposterous ideological gamesmanship, and one of Dan's most pathetically indefensible statements. TDr. Strangelove wrote:It's not banning anything. If people want to fund a political campaign, they are free to do so. But that politician is no longer allowed to vote on any matters in which those "funders" are materially interested parties.