Which Corporations are Buying Your Candidates?

*cue music*

"This debacle has been brought to you by the 17th Amendment!"
*end music*

Maybe we could go back to having our state legislatures nominate senators, and as such will be tethered to the people who they are supposed to represent.

I'm with histrogeek, make them wear sponsor patches on their suits.

Excessive campaign contributions have always been a problem. And then there are the independent expenditures that are basically unlimited. Such being the case, what are ways to regulate such without infringing upon free speech?

I remember reading about a proposal for a 1 candidate/race rule, where contributions are unlimited, but can only be for 1 candidate/race. So, well, if that person lost, one's influence becomes negligible.

Something else that's related is redistricting reform. It's a travesty how nowadays the party in power often gets to pick who its voters are, rather than the other way around. Districts become rigged to be almost always deep red or blue, making the moderate an endangered species. Gridlock is the result.

Very clever - but of course corporate stooges would never wear those jackets.

The only answer to rampant corporate bribery of our elected representatives is 100% public campaign financing with all other campaign contributions strictly prohibited - no exceptions.

This would be a tremendous bargain for American taxpayers.

Even before the 17th Amendment, states were never entitled to pull Senators from Congress. That's why terms are spelled out for Senators.
Once again, the whole reason for the 17th Amendment wasn't some demented federal power grab but massive popular outrage the inability of the public to influence the Senate and the domination of corporation over the state legislatures.

Public financing is an interesting idea, but as usual, the devil's in the details. The problems I see with it are...
1. What criteria do we use to determine who is a major candidate worthy of public financing?
2. What about the free speech implications? Does it violate free speech to dictate that I cannot spend my money promoting
X, even if X were a candidate or position supported by a candidate?

Maybe Sojourners could print tshirts that say "Funded by George Soros"

Where did the comment go about the "Sojourners...brought to you by George Soros" t-shirt?

Sad.

Even before the 17th Amendment, states were never entitled to pull Senators from Congress. That's why terms are spelled out for Senators.
Once again, the whole reason for the 17th Amendment wasn't some demented federal power grab but massive popular outrage the inability of the public to influence the Senate and the domination of corporation over the state legislatures.

Public financing is an interesting idea, but as usual, the devil's in the details. The problems I see with it are...
1. What criteria do we use to determine who is a major candidate worthy of public financing?
2. What about the free speech implications? Does it violate free speech to dictate that I cannot spend my money promoting
X, even if X were a candidate or position supported by a candidate?

I like LaVonne's idea. One amendment I'd make it that the t-shirts wouldn't just be biggest donor industries, but biggest donating entities, to include all big donors, not just corporate ones. Remember, the Supreme Court decision opened up spending on all not-for-profits, not just corporations. Some of the biggest non-profits to take advantage of the ruling haven't been corporations at all:

This was published in Mother Jones:

President Barack Obama decried the decision as "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." Just as predicted, campaign ads that would previously have been illegal are now airing in key midterm election races. But the players funding those ads aren't the ones you might expect. It turns out that some of the first groups to exploit Citizens United aren't corporations, but labor unions.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2zwPW3/motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/citizens-united-effect

Public financing is an interesting idea, but as usual, the devil's in the details.

Indeed!

I think No. 1 will be easier to solve than No. 2. There are a number of ways to qualify candidates for public financing already in use, but of course none are perfect. Australia uses a primary election with a 4% threshold to establish eligibility for public financing. Willingness to debate is another criteria but Jan Brewer, who only participated in the Arizona Governor debate to become eligible for $1.7M in public financing. Her dismal performance convinced her to pull out of any future debates but she'll keep the $1.7M.

Regarding No. 2, legal analysts commenting on the recent Supreme Court decision have stated that if ALL candidates are subject to the same rules of full public campaign financing then the free speech issue need not apply.

Interesting that the Obama campaign opted out of public financing because their online campaign strategy was so successful they did not want to accept the ceiling imposed by present public financing rules.
The McCain campaign opted in but then failed to observe the funding limitations associated with accepting the public funding.
It's obvious that any system of public campaign financing will only work if all candidates are subject to the same rules.

Or we could repeal the 17th Amendment and have our State legislatures appoint ambassadors to Congress like they did prior to the 17th amendment. It kept Congress out of the pockets of Big Business since they were tethered to the State legislatures whom they represented. So if Joe Biden wasn't representing the State of Delaware properly, the DE state legislature (acting for its people as a sovereign state) could yank him from Congress. In other words, Biden would work for DE, not for corporations in Delaware who would like to get in bed with Big Government.

By the way, I'm only picking Joe Biden cuz I used to live in Delaware, and he was the first Senator to come to mind, and DE has plenty of business interests, being a sales tax-free state.

They were correct on the first critique (yes, I read the book, and at the time agreed mostly with Wallis), but Wallis is indeed evangelical. Much as I disagree with him, I wouldn't place him outside the evangelical community.

Would electing Senators indirectly really help though, since well, the state legislatures are elected, and THEY have campaigns that need to be funded. And considering how we hear so little about the campaigns for state legislatures, such a process could be worse rather than better.

It all comes down to transparency...workable election finance laws could be crafted which would address this issue, which is an issue for all Americans, no matter what their political beliefs.

As Christians, we are called upon to live open lives which can bear scrutiny by God as well as our fellow citizens...should we expect any less of our elected representatives?

Oh, and by the way, transparency should include nearly all information which is restricted as "being in the interests of national security". But that's another Pandora's box to open at another time.

Pray For Peace And Dare To Act!

I'll have to look into the details. Thanks for your perspective.

I like LaVonne's idea. One amendment I'd make it that the t-shirts wouldn't just be biggest donor industries, but biggest donating entities, to include all big donors, not just corporate ones. Remember, the Supreme Court decision opened up spending on all not-for-profits, not just corporations. Some of the biggest non-profits to take advantage of the ruling haven't been corporations at all:

This was published in Mother Jones:

President Barack Obama decried the decision as "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." Just as predicted, campaign ads that would previously have been illegal are now airing in key midterm election races. But the players funding those ads aren't the ones you might expect. It turns out that some of the first groups to exploit Citizens United aren't corporations, but labor unions.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2zwPW3/motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/citizens-united-effect

Other than saying that he misspoke, none was warranted. Keep in mind that World magazine trashed the book "God's Politics" as "Democratic talking points" and for not being sufficiently evangelical, so I imagine he had a reason for saying what he did about Olasky.

2. Yes, Sojourners did. Wallis admitted it
3. Not the point of his comment.

Would electing Senators indirectly really help though, since well, the state legislatures are elected, and THEY have campaigns that need to be funded. And considering how we hear so little about the campaigns for state legislatures, such a process could be worse rather than better.

I don't much care who gives them money as long as they make the right decisions. Everyone "buys" politicians with donations; it's part of free speech. After all, money is one way to make it from candidate to politician. The question is how hard (or more importantly, how RIGHT) you work for the people after you make it.

If you would do a little research instead of just drinking the Kool Aid, you

would see he donated over $200,000.00. Soros is a Marxist atheist who

promotes his political agenda by giving large sums of money to those who

will support him and those he wants to influence. He wouldn't give money to

Focus on the Family.

LOL... I did a quick Google search to start my research, and I learned that Delaware just ratified it! I realize it's kinda pointless, which was why the state didn't back in 1913, but I had to LOL and wanted to share.