Posted on 03/15/2012 9:17:42 PM PDT by stump56
As I watch the election cycle with PACs and Super PACs and the never ending spin of paid consultants, who have no loyalty to our constitution, I have a modest proposal for Freeperdom to consider. How about restricting donations to political campaigns only to those who can vote for the candidate? If we did this, it takes out the corruption and brings back the citizen politician. I have heard this idea kicked about by a few of my friends. Is there anyone else who thinks this is a good idea. Or, do other Freepers know why this could be a bad idea?
If this happened, when redistricting occurs, not even former voters of that candidate could donate monies if they aren’t in the new area.
How about politicians regulating only that commerce which is truly interstate?
I always thought political parties should raise funds by means of an annual membership dues, equal for all members.
never happen of course.
I also think voter registration rolls should be cleared after all election. Viter registration should happen at city hall, in person- with ID, just like actual voting.
I like the registration idea. No more multiple precinct and/or dead voters.
Nice idea, but unworkable. How can you enforce something like this? You’d have to undo the entire concept of the secret ballot in order to make it work. And what would happen if someone decided not to vote for the candidate they supported with cash - civil court? criminal court? invalidating the vote?
Here’s my response to the idea of cash corrupting elections. If the federal government was actually restricted to the list of duties in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the mad crush of lobbyists and supporters wouldn’t descend on Washington, D.C., in order to gain favors and money. Certainly there would be some of that, since human beings are not perfect creatures, but the limitations on federal power would necessarily also limit the hangers-on and the lobbyists. This would apply to campaign contributions, too. People have the right to support whomever they want however they want; it’s called “freedom of association.” Limiting the power of the federal government changes the focus and attitudes of those associating to use the federal government for their own purposes. IMHO
check this out
So Dick Lugar couldn’t contribute to his own campaign?
check this out...
You bring up one of the issues with the idea. But, if the donations were one-way blind, a potential voter could contribute to two or more candidates if they desired. The only requirement is being a registered voter. Policing the system has to be completely examined. Also, the voter’s actual vote would be secret as it is now(????).
The British work around this problem by giving each viable candidate (i.e. their party met or exceeded a minimum level of votes in the last election) a small amount of money from the public till. They also provide a small amount of money to the national parties and a limited amount of free air time on the BBC. Lobbyists are strictly prohibited. Private donations and use of personal funds are also forbidden. They do this in order to avoid the “corrupt American political process.” It works except for one huge problem ... their politicians go to parliament poor, and eventually retire from public office poor.
Good evening from Alaska... essentially, you’re creating a contract between the contributor and the candidate. Sure, you might be able to legally hide it from view in most cases, but not in cases where there was a legal question involved. And there would be.
Your desire for a fair system is noble, but the campaign contribution problem is an expression of the fact that we’re now living in a post-Constitutional republic. Power is being concentrated in a centralized government, and with that concentration comes corruption and money. The campaign contribution problem is a symptom, not a cause. It’s sort of like taking NyQuil for a nagging cough when the disease is lung cancer.
Be well and God bless you.
public funding is the wrong way to go
I don’t agree. I give money to Candidates that I think will be good for my State, and my Country.
A recent example would be contributing to TX District 23 Candidate, Congressman Francisco “Quico” Canseco, a Hispanic Republican who won that seat in Nov 2010. It had long been held by Ciro Rodriguez, a Pro Abort Catholic Democrat.
That is pure genius. The whole concept!
It could clear up a myriad of problems.
The best election reform I have ever seen is that anyone can spend as much as he/she wants on a given candidate or issue. But he/she would be limited to $25 checks — HAND WRITTEN (no check-signing machines).
You want to give $25,000? Hand write 1,000 checks!
Pretty simple concept. Leftists won’t like it.
personally I think all politicians should have to wear a lie detector that lights up or has a siren that goes off when they lie.
But campaigns would be like a continuous strobe light show accompanied by those annoying horns that were used during the World Cup.
They don't call it the second oldest profession for no reason.
The Constitutionally ignorant, politically biased, hacks at the USSC blew this decision awhile back.
This country is founded on the premise of “WE THE PEOPLE” not we the unions, or we the corporations, or we the church, or we the organization.
The same retards who claim it is a free speech issue for a union/corporation... to make political contributions seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that my $1000 contribution is completely obliterated by Million Dollar contributions by scum like Bill Mahr. I, and millions like me have no political free speech as that speech cannot be heard because of political contributions from the aforementioned NON “We The People” entities.
Contributions to a political candidate must come from an individual, living human, USA Citizens ONLY. Make contribution limits very low 1-2K so we might actually have input.
If we had a functioning USSC this drastic measure might not be necessary as the government would have been kept within its constitutional limits but the political hacks with their obviously biased and endless 5-4 decisions have destroyed everyone of our constitutional protections.
Never forget there is a very sinister reason politicians will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get a job which only pays a few hundred thousand and it is not because they have a pure heart and mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.