Campaign Finance Reform

[BigRedBuster]

Hmmm....Just reading this article, I actually kind of like this idea. Everyone is trying to figure out how to regulate the unregulatable. Well....why not go the other direction entirely.

 

LINK

[strigori]

Man, I do not agree with that at all. I completely disagree with the correlation they are drawing between voting and advertising funding. And I have little faith in the secret nature of the donations remaining that way. The flaw is that it would be political positions that would hold the secret, and the idea that a secret with that much money, influence and power on the line seems a little far fetched to me. Too much room for the underhanded to manipulate the system.

 

I'm in favor of 100% disclosure, within 48 hours of receiving the money, posted online publicly. The nature of current social media would pretty much force corporate money out of politics. And make it very obvious to the voting public who is financing the politicians. It should hold up to any SCOTUS challenge, as free speech is not being limited by being said publicly.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I'm in favor of 100% disclosure, within 48 hours of receiving the money, posted online publicly. The nature of current social media would pretty much force corporate money out of politics. And make it very obvious to the voting public who is financing the politicians. It should hold up to any SCOTUS challenge, as free speech is not being limited by being said publicly.

95% of the population wouldn't give a flying rip and would never go visit the site to find out.

 

The Koch Brothers and Geoge Soros will still have all the influence they want.

[strigori]

 

 

 

I'm in favor of 100% disclosure, within 48 hours of receiving the money, posted online publicly. The nature of current social media would pretty much force corporate money out of politics. And make it very obvious to the voting public who is financing the politicians. It should hold up to any SCOTUS challenge, as free speech is not being limited by being said publicly.

95% of the population wouldn't give a flying rip and would never go visit the site to find out.

 

That's where the social media aspect comes into play. People who do care, will spread big donors via email, facebook, twitter and so on. And donations to one side, may well anger the other, which could in turn damage the business who donated. By and large businesses need customers of all sorts, and alienating a large faction of the consumers is bad business. Target had an example of this a couple years ago where a donation to a far right politician sparked enough of a backlash they withdrew the donation. Granted it wouldnt make a difference to the likes of the Koch bros, but it very well could make a massive difference large scale. To say nothing of the fact that ads would very quickly include who was backing certain candidates.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

I'm in favor of 100% disclosure, within 48 hours of receiving the money, posted online publicly. The nature of current social media would pretty much force corporate money out of politics. And make it very obvious to the voting public who is financing the politicians. It should hold up to any SCOTUS challenge, as free speech is not being limited by being said publicly.

95% of the population wouldn't give a flying rip and would never go visit the site to find out.

 

That's where the social media aspect comes into play. People who do care, will spread big donors via email, facebook, twitter and so on. And donations to one side, may well anger the other, which could in turn damage the business who donated. By and large businesses need customers of all sorts, and alienating a large faction of the consumers is bad business. Target had an example of this a couple years ago where a donation to a far right politician sparked enough of a backlash they withdrew the donation. Granted it wouldnt make a difference to the likes of the Koch bros, but it very well could make a massive difference large scale. To say nothing of the fact that ads would very quickly include who was backing certain candidates.

 

Right now I can google top Democrat donors and top Republican donors.

 

Social media is going gang busters......I don't see any influence on the system. It still sucks and money is still the biggest problem.

[strigori]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm in favor of 100% disclosure, within 48 hours of receiving the money, posted online publicly. The nature of current social media would pretty much force corporate money out of politics. And make it very obvious to the voting public who is financing the politicians. It should hold up to any SCOTUS challenge, as free speech is not being limited by being said publicly.

95% of the population wouldn't give a flying rip and would never go visit the site to find out.

 

That's where the social media aspect comes into play. People who do care, will spread big donors via email, facebook, twitter and so on. And donations to one side, may well anger the other, which could in turn damage the business who donated. By and large businesses need customers of all sorts, and alienating a large faction of the consumers is bad business. Target had an example of this a couple years ago where a donation to a far right politician sparked enough of a backlash they withdrew the donation. Granted it wouldnt make a difference to the likes of the Koch bros, but it very well could make a massive difference large scale. To say nothing of the fact that ads would very quickly include who was backing certain candidates.

 

Right now I can google top Democrat donors and top Republican donors.

 

Social media is going gang busters......I don't see any influence on the system. It still sucks and money is still the biggest problem.

 

The aspect I'm focused on is on a per candidate issue. Donating to a party in general doesnt tend to fire up anyone. Giving to a particular candidate will tend to be much more passionate. Similar to how Congress has a less than 25% approval rate, yet most of the clowns are going to be reelected because on an individual level many more people approve of the person.

[BigRedBuster]

There are so many ways around that it would be meaningless.

[VectorVictor]

At the end of the day, it doesn't resolve the biggest problem with campaigns--that money has been equated with free speech.

 

Until this is resolved, along with holding PACs and political non-profits accountable (something that we know the American Taliban isn't keen on, per their last temper tantrum with this), we're still going to have people like the Koch Brothers trying to force people to buy into their perverse version of America.