Don’t force me to pay for your campaign
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. It’s called, “Don’t force me to pay for your campaign.” In part…
The great mantra of the supporters of taxpayer financing of campaigns is that it will “get the money out of politics.”
Hogwash.
Oh don’t worry, you are already paying in so many ways more than you know, and I’m not talking direct contributions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2008 at 2310 hrs
I know that’s the argument, but I don’t buy it. If WMC drops $2 million on a campaign and the candidate uses public funds, is the candidate any less likely to favor WMC’s wishes?
Posted by Owen on January 08, 2008 at 2313 hrs
Is the candidate any less “beholden to special interests” than if the group did the same thing under the current rules? No, not at all.
Interesting admission.
Instead, let’s focus on transparency and accountability.
Indeed. Where would you like to start in fleshing out the definitions of these two topics?
Shall we start with transparency?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2008 at 2353 hrs
As Keith says, taxpayers already are paying for the campaigns, they’re just paying through the back door and at hundreds of times more than if we simply paid up front. I’d hope that you’d reject our corrupt system in a heartbeat.
Unknown to many detractors is “matching funds.” If WMC drops $2M on a candidate, the opponent gets $2M from the public fund, so a smart WMC is not likely to throw their money into the race in the first place.
I’d encourage you to look at “Political corruption is not a partisan issue!” at http://tinyurl.com/ywbvwz
I’m not interested in seeing who is bribing my politician through transparency, I don’t want her bribed at all. Besides, we already have that at http://www.wisdc.org and i,t isn’t working.
Posted by Jack E. Lohman on January 09, 2008 at 0558 hrs
I suggest you consider my column on the subject, posted on gmtoday.com Opinion Archives, under my name, and at “Hearts and Minds” blog, on January 2. Owen is defending the status quo, and misrepresenting the issue of “Freedom of speech” while ignoring the important “matching funds” provision. Owen also does not mention the increasing number of states that have implemented public financing of elections.
And his reference to politicians “working for” their campaign contributions (under the current system) is a telling and transparent euphemism. Considering the size and sources of “donations” that politicians “work for”, and the expected and demonstrated “return on investment” (paid for with our tax dollars) it’s more direct and accurate to call it hustling and accepting bribes and payola - not “working” for it.
Posted by Clyde Winter on January 09, 2008 at 1048 hrs
The only true way to get money out of politics, is to have the candidate pay out of his own pocket. Plain and simple.
2 candidates both running on issues and NO special interest money or ads. PERIOD!
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 09, 2008 at 1108 hrs
There are two aged US Supreme Court decisions that make your recommendation impossible to implement, Michael. See my recent article in the Ozaukee News-Graphic (linked in comment 5, above) for the specifics. Even if it were possible, your recommendation would leave only quite wealthy individuals in a position to run for elected office. That’s not American democracy.
Posted by Clyde Winter on January 09, 2008 at 1336 hrs
There are ways to implement campaign finance reform constitutionally and fairly. Arizona’s voluntary system should be our model. Currently we have a system that pits plutocrats against plutocrats. All of the power is in the hands of the people with access vast sums of money with us little guys stuck in the middle.
If you have true faith in the free market you should be assured that your side will still win out in the war of ideas, even when the battlefield is truly level.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2008 at 1402 hrs
I didn’t say it was a good idea. I only said that it was the only way it could truly be done.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 09, 2008 at 1427 hrs
Unknown to many detractors is “matching funds.” If WMC drops $2M on a candidate, the opponent gets $2M from the public fund, so a smart WMC is not likely to throw their money into the race in the first place.
what if there are multiple opponents? That sounds like a great way to blow loads of tax money…
Posted by Matt on January 09, 2008 at 1557 hrs
what if there are multiple opponents? That sounds like a great way to blow loads of tax money…
Philanthropists and us bleeding heart liberals would voluntarily provide funds to a general account that would provide “matching funds”. Special interests would also be easily shamed into funding a general account with a PR campaign exposing how much they gave to special interests. It would be horrible publicity for any corporation to be exposed as providing millions to a certain candidate, but refusing to supply any money to a general fund. This can all be done voluntarily. If it can’t be done voluntarily, it shouldn’t be done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2008 at 1623 hrs
Philanthropists and us bleeding heart liberals would voluntarily provide funds to a general account that would provide “matching funds”...
Oh yea, a general fund, that would be a GREAT IDEA!, it would give our esteemed bald headed Governor ANOTHER fund to raid at Budget time!
Yep sounds like a winner to me.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 09, 2008 at 1627 hrs
Yeah, multiple matching funds might quadruple the costs from $5 to $20 per taxpayer per year rather the the $1300 per taxpayer the current system is costing us!!! Let’s not do THAT!
But seriously, what contributor is going to throw $1m into a campaign when they know it is going to be matched? The current reason is that it unlevels the playing field and offers an advantage. If neither of those occur why would they needlessly toss money away?
Posted by Jack E. Lohman on January 09, 2008 at 1639 hrs
The problem with matching funds is the timing. Let’s say that an evil special interest drops $1 million into an ad campaign a week before the election. There is no possible way for that to be reported, documented, matching funds disbursed to the opponent, buying and scheduling response ad time, etc. The election is over before anyone is even notified that the $1 million was spent.
Plus, what do you do about issue ads. They aren’t specifically targeting a specific candidate but clearly benefit a candidate. Do you send out matching funds then to? Or are you only counting matching funds for direct contributions to the candidates?
Posted by Owen on January 09, 2008 at 1758 hrs
Some things can’t be a 100% fix, Owen, but my guess is that skirting the intent of the law could backfire on the candidate it was intended to help. The media will be the first to recognize it and they could respond with newscasts immediately.
And even then it isn’t going to be perfect, but it’s a helluva lot better than the corrupt system we have now. And I’d hope the conservative “values” folks are as fed up as they should be.
Posted by Jack E. Lohman on January 09, 2008 at 2221 hrs
Consider this a LTE for your column.
http://www.justiceatstake.org:80/contentViewer.asp?breadcrumb=3,570,1019[/email]
And I’d hope the conservative “values” folks are as fed up as they should be.
And Jack your hope would not seem to be lost.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2008 at 1847 hrs
That’s a nicely leading poll question.
Bonus points for using a fun buzz word.If the only difference between two candidates running for judicial office was that
[ROTATE] one used taxpayer money to run his or her campaign AND one used
special interest money to run his or her campaign, which one would you vote for,
or would the source of donations not matter? [PROBE: Definitely/Probably]
23% Definitely candidate using taxpayer money
19% Probably candidate using taxpayer money
9% Probably candidate using special interest money
4% Definitely candidate using special interest money
37% Wouldn’t matter
9% Don’t know
41% TOTAL TAXPAYER MONEY
13% TOTAL SPECIAL INTEREST MONEYPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2008 at 1920 hrs
That’s a nicely leading poll question. rolleyes Bonus points for using a fun buzz word.
I agree.
I think if they would have interjected a “Hogwash” or two, they could have made it more objective.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2008 at 1952 hrs
I think if they would have interjected a “Hogwash” or two, they could have made it more objective.
Ummm… pjr? My column is an opinion column. The poll you posted pretends to be objective. Big difference.
Posted by Owen on January 10, 2008 at 2054 hrs
Owen, the poll does not pretend to be anything.
It provides data on a how a particular population responded to a set of particular questions.
We can argue the approach taken in crafting the survey instrument all you want but it will not change the answers the respondents gave to those particular survey questions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2008 at 2138 hrs
A couple years ago Citizen Action published a report that showed that in 75% of the cases reaching the Supreme Court level, there was a campaign contributor on one side or the other.
What is it that Owen and other opponents do not understand about money? It works, or it wouldn’t be given. It is corrupting, or there is no use making the investment.
Posted by Jack E. Lohman on January 10, 2008 at 2149 hrs
My column is an opinion column. The poll [pjr] posted pretends to be objective. Big difference.
Owen, I’d sure hope that your “opinion” was also “objective.” Perhaps even pragmatic. We have a corrupt political system that is costing hoards of needless taxation, and the right wing gets hung up on “rights” and “free speech” to protect the status quo.
It’s time to recognize the system for what it is; legalized bribery. You wouldn’t allow it in your business or church; you shouldn’t condone it here.
Posted by Jack E. Lohman on January 10, 2008 at 2226 hrs
Just like all your posts on your blog are “objective?” The eyeroll smiley is getting lots of use today.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 10, 2008 at 2234 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134033
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 06:50 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 119
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 07:26 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).