5 ms·

FEC reform is the number one thing that the US federal government needs but no member of Congress will ever touch. All presidential campaign funds must be 100%

FEC reform is the number one thing that the US federal government needs but no member of Congress will ever touch. All presidential campaign funds must be 100% publicly funded. I don't care how much more it taxes onto federal tax or how un-American it is. This shit will never end otherwise.

mason240 11y ago
I'm not willing to completely gut the First Amendment and abolish free speech.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  There are lots of countries that have strong supreme courts and free speech guarantees in their constitution yet have managed to limit election spending. I personally find the dissent in Citizens United much more compelling than the majority opinion.
chishaku 11y ago
Just enforcing the laws currently on the books would be a good start. “The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim... People think the FEC is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional." - Ann Ravel, FEC Chairwoman http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-... The FEC has referred __eight___ campaign finance enforcement cases to the DOJ since __1978__. http://www.bna.com/fec-rarely-votes-n17179934048/ http://www.bna.com/fec-rarely-votes-n17179934048/
maxerickson 11y ago
I'm turning into a single issue troll with this, but I think we can make a positive change at the state level by changing ballot access. Just stop allowing parties to nominate candidates. The machines can still endorse a candidate, but we could gut the national election process one state at a time by requiring any individual that wants to be listed on a ballot to submit petitions for that ballot, rather than receiving the blessings of a privately run national organization.
- tamana 11y ago
  How would that solve any problems? Submitting a petition to be on a ballot is a basic effort for national party. That's practically the the reason a national party exists in the first place.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    It would make the conventions irrelevant. The national party chooses the candidate to place on ballots using whatever rules they set for the national convention. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be all the procedural nonsense that we see put towards trying to win the national conventions, people that thought they had a serious shot at getting a plurality of votes would organize to get themselves on ballots. We'd have a ballot this fall with 10 names on it, not 2.5. Click to show the partisan requirements here and note the huge disparities with independents: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates#Party_nomination_processes https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candi... So not only is there the huge well organized machine you mention could easily collect signatures, there is also generally a much easier (and tightly controlled) path to the ballot. edit: It's quite likely that the president would be selected by the Electoral College, but personally I'd prefer that to the current process where the president is selected by the superior voter targeting strategy.
chatmasta 11y ago
What if someone with a lot of money wants to get Hillary elected, so they spend their own money on sock puppets to promote her? Should Hillary be liable for those actions even if she had no knowledge of them? This is the "arms length" argument of super PACs. At first glance it sounds really corrupt, but when you actually think about it, how can you tell someone what to spend their money on? If I want to spend $100 million of my own money to promote my candidate of choice, shouldn't I be able to do that?
- hga 11y ago
  Congratulations, you've just made part of the case for Citizens United, which coincidentally pertained to an ... unflattering movie about Hillary. (The stronger case is of course "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....", most especially core political speech.)

mason240 11y ago

I'm not willing to completely gut the First Amendment and abolish free speech.

bryanlarsen 11y ago
There are lots of countries that have strong supreme courts and free speech guarantees in their constitution yet have managed to limit election spending. I personally find the dissent in Citizens United much more compelling than the majority opinion.

chishaku 11y ago

Just enforcing the laws currently on the books would be a good start. “The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim... People think the FEC is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional." - Ann Ravel, FEC Chairwoman http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-... The FEC has referred __eight___ campaign finance enforcement cases to the DOJ since __1978__. http://www.bna.com/fec-rarely-votes-n17179934048/ http://www.bna.com/fec-rarely-votes-n17179934048/

maxerickson 11y ago

I'm turning into a single issue troll with this, but I think we can make a positive change at the state level by changing ballot access. Just stop allowing parties to nominate candidates. The machines can still endorse a candidate, but we could gut the national election process one state at a time by requiring any individual that wants to be listed on a ballot to submit petitions for that ballot, rather than receiving the blessings of a privately run national organization.

tamana 11y ago
How would that solve any problems? Submitting a petition to be on a ballot is a basic effort for national party. That's practically the the reason a national party exists in the first place.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  It would make the conventions irrelevant. The national party chooses the candidate to place on ballots using whatever rules they set for the national convention. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be all the procedural nonsense that we see put towards trying to win the national conventions, people that thought they had a serious shot at getting a plurality of votes would organize to get themselves on ballots. We'd have a ballot this fall with 10 names on it, not 2.5. Click to show the partisan requirements here and note the huge disparities with independents: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates#Party_nomination_processes https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candi... So not only is there the huge well organized machine you mention could easily collect signatures, there is also generally a much easier (and tightly controlled) path to the ballot. edit: It's quite likely that the president would be selected by the Electoral College, but personally I'd prefer that to the current process where the president is selected by the superior voter targeting strategy.

chatmasta 11y ago

What if someone with a lot of money wants to get Hillary elected, so they spend their own money on sock puppets to promote her? Should Hillary be liable for those actions even if she had no knowledge of them? This is the "arms length" argument of super PACs. At first glance it sounds really corrupt, but when you actually think about it, how can you tell someone what to spend their money on? If I want to spend $100 million of my own money to promote my candidate of choice, shouldn't I be able to do that?

hga 11y ago
Congratulations, you've just made part of the case for Citizens United, which coincidentally pertained to an ... unflattering movie about Hillary. (The stronger case is of course "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....", most especially core political speech.)