Moroun buys a politician

[Wesley Mouch]

100% publicly funded campaigns with caps on total expenditures allowed
Zero TV advertisements
No PACs or dark money of any kind

The costs to run a campaign have risen so much that anyone running for a federal or statewide level office either has to be independently wealthy or becomes entirely beholden to the opinions of the big donors that contribute to their campaigns. The average person is entirely shut out of the process other than voting for the person who took more money from the group of special interests you somewhat agree with as opposed to the one who took more money from the special interests you disagree with. Both candidates are bought and paid for to the point where they are listening to those groups and not their constituents.

Then the whole thing with PACs and dark money is an entirely different thing. They are these groups with cryptic names and untraceable monetary resources. They do a great job of telling you what you should think and who or what you should vote for, but we don't know why they are telling you that or who is telling you that. The current laws make the process so secretive, that it is entirely plausable that foreign governments could very well be providing funding to support stances that are in their best interests and not in the best interests of the United States...and nobody would know.

100% public funding puts everyone on an equal playing field. The electrician has just as much say as the CEO. It allows people from all walks of life the ability to run for office and serve their community/state/country without requiring immense financial resources or being required to maintain promises to those that do have those resources. In addition, it would break the two party stranglehold on our political system as every candidate from every party will have the same opportunity to share their stances and ideas so that voters can weigh and measure them all equally.

I do share your concern about money in politics. But I don't share your belief in a centrally planned solution.

Imagine the Detroit City Council of just a few years ago in charge of elections. Imagine the efficiency of DDOT being brought to your local campaign events. Imagine the Dearborn City Council of 1955 running the debates.

The beautiful world of equality and fairness are alluring, but history tells us that centrally-planned solutions end up destroying rather than enhancing politics.

Better to trust the people to be able to detect b.s. and elect good politicians. Keep a massive dialogue going. And head towards full disclosure solutions, with all the ugliness of retaliation therein. Every previous attempt to control campaign finances have failed, and in fact have made the situation worse.

it is very hard to believe, but the noisy system we have is remarkably good at delivering fair results. Is there some 'quid pro quo' Unions buy Democrats or bankers buy Republicans? Of course. But you are wrong if you think the world you describe above won't have back room deals made by those in power to stay in power, too.

Err on the side of free speech.

[EL Jimbo]

I do share your concern about money in politics. But I don't share your belief in a centrally planned solution.

Imagine the Detroit City Council of just a few years ago in charge of elections. Imagine the efficiency of DDOT being brought to your local campaign events. Imagine the Dearborn City Council of 1955 running the debates.

The beautiful world of equality and fairness are alluring, but history tells us that centrally-planned solutions end up destroying rather than enhancing politics.

Better to trust the people to be able to detect b.s. and elect good politicians. Keep a massive dialogue going. And head towards full disclosure solutions, with all the ugliness of retaliation therein. Every previous attempt to control campaign finances have failed, and in fact have made the situation worse.

it is very hard to believe, but the noisy system we have is remarkably good at delivering fair results. Is there some 'quid pro quo' Unions buy Democrats or bankers buy Republicans? Of course. But you are wrong if you think the world you describe above won't have back room deals made by those in power to stay in power, too.

Err on the side of free speech.

Spending money is NOT free speech. I'm not saying it would be perfect. I'm just saying it would be better.

Also, why would the Detroit City council or any of those other organizations be in charge of elections? Besides, I hate to break this to you, but if you are concerned about centrally planned, government controlled elections perhaps you forgot your high school civics class that would have taught you that government agencies are already in charge of elections. Do you think the government is like the Academy Awards where they hire Ernst & Young to certify the vote?

The bottom line is that elections would be LESS centrally planned under this system. Instead of two parties and the massive influx of cash from their corporate/organized labor/special interest backers drowning out any other competition so that the election is narrowed down to only their candidates, we could have a variety of candidates with a much broader spectrum of ideas and opinions truly participate. In addition, because candidates don't have to fund their own campaigns, there is no wealth barrier keeping potential candidates from running. People from all walks of life could run.

[Wesley Mouch]

Spending money is NOT free speech. I'm not saying it would be perfect. I'm just saying it would be better.

Also, why would the Detroit City council or any of those other organizations be in charge of elections? Besides, I hate to break this to you, but if you are concerned about centrally planned, government controlled elections perhaps you forgot your high school civics class that would have taught you that government agencies are already in charge of elections. Do you think the government is like the Academy Awards where they hire Ernst & Young to certify the vote?

The bottom line is that elections would be LESS centrally planned under this system. Instead of two parties and the massive influx of cash from their corporate/organized labor/special interest backers drowning out any other competition so that the election is narrowed down to only their candidates, we could have a variety of candidates with a much broader spectrum of ideas and opinions truly participate. In addition, because candidates don't have to fund their own campaigns, there is no wealth barrier keeping potential candidates from running. People from all walks of life could run.

Dream on.

For a taste of the future under your plan, read the current federal finance laws -- obviously written by the major parties you will agree:

Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. [[A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party.) The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party's popular vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.

And there you have it. Your federal government bureaucracy enforcing two-party rule, and making sure only they get the cash. No wonder fewer and fewer people each year vote to fund this charade. Fewer than 8% [[as of 2006) agreed to give -- even though giving through your IRS return costs you NOTHING as it most clearly states. With Obama having been the first candidate to opt-out of this game, its over now. And let's hope with it the dream of limiting the speech of individuals and groups [[Unions, Corporations, PACs) who have the audacity to have a point of view and wish to persuade others by what you want to become banned activity.

Limits on campaign finance are only tools to maintain the power of current politicians, Red & Blue.

[EL Jimbo]

Dream on.

For a taste of the future under your plan, read the current federal finance laws -- obviously written by the major parties you will agree:


And there you have it. Your federal government bureaucracy enforcing two-party rule, and making sure only they get the cash. No wonder fewer and fewer people each year vote to fund this charade. Fewer than 8% [[as of 2006) agreed to give -- even though giving through your IRS return costs you NOTHING as it most clearly states. With Obama having been the first candidate to opt-out of this game, its over now. And let's hope with it the dream of limiting the speech of individuals and groups [[Unions, Corporations, PACs) who have the audacity to have a point of view and wish to persuade others by what you want to become banned activity.

Limits on campaign finance are only tools to maintain the power of current politicians, Red & Blue.

And you are completely misrepresenting my argument by turning it into some sort of strawman.

I wasn't proposing ANYTHING like that legislation. You know it and I know it. So stop trying to manipulate my words. Either argue my points or don't.

Lastly, money is not speech. Money is money. And money given to politicians with the promise that they will "deliver" on certain issues is essentially a bribe.