How elderly dementia patients are unwittingly fueling political campaigns

[Danny Bateman]

Link to the story.

Not really sure where to post this and I didn't really want to derail one of the other threads, but I thought it deserved it's own thread.

If you've EVER donated to a political campaign in the era of online donations, you know how this works. I never thought about how recurring payments (a ridiculous idea, IMO) could affect those who don't have all the faculties.

Naturally, per the article, Republicans are a lot more guilty on this. Some of their landing pages for Trump donations have outright scammy "sweepstakes" vibes to them promising dinner with the man himself or some other appealing grand prize. Elon's $1M giveaway comes to mind (that one is for sure blatantly illegal, but I doubt anything comes of it). But obviously both parties utilize the recurring donation option and drain unwitting folks' accounts every month.

Overall this just makes me more frustrated with our campaign finance laws. The Citizens United decision was stupid. Corporations are not people. Public, transparent funding of elections is the way.

 

[TGHusker]

Link to the story.

Not really sure where to post this and I didn't really want to derail one of the other threads, but I thought it deserved it's own thread.

If you've EVER donated to a political campaign in the era of online donations, you know how this works. I never thought about how recurring payments (a ridiculous idea, IMO) could affect those who don't have all the faculties.

Naturally, per the article, Republicans are a lot more guilty on this. Some of their landing pages for Trump donations have outright scammy "sweepstakes" vibes to them promising dinner with the man himself or some other appealing grand prize. Elon's $1M giveaway comes to mind (that one is for sure blatantly illegal, but I doubt anything comes of it). But obviously both parties utilize the recurring donation option and drain unwitting folks' accounts every month.

Overall this just makes me more frustrated with our campaign finance laws. The Citizens United decision was stupid. Corporations are not people. Public, transparent funding of elections is the way.

This really boils my blood.  I'm going to check with family back home and ask them to check on my 94 year old dad who is a Trump supporter - believes all of the trump lies.   Citzens United needs to be overturned.  We need election overhaul - as you note - Public transparent funding, shorten the election/primary season, and while we are at it - install ranked voting in primaries.  

 

[Danny Bateman]

This really boils my blood.  I'm going to check with family back home and ask them to check on my 94 year old dad who is a Trump supporter - believes all of the trump lies.   Citzens United needs to be overturned.  We need election overhaul - as you note - Public transparent funding, shorten the election/primary season, and while we are at it - install ranked voting in primaries.  

All good ideas my friend. :thumbs

Harris actually was an interesting test run in a candidate rolling out a MUCH shorter election season. It's not a perfect example for various reasons but I found it really refreshing. Here's hoping someday it's the norm.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Harris actually was an interesting test run in a candidate rolling out a MUCH shorter election season. It's not a perfect example for various reasons but I found it really refreshing. Here's hoping someday it's the norm.

It's true. Four months has been long enough for Harris/Walz to raise a billion dollars and feel like they've been campaigning for a year. 

But other countries get to "declare" elections in the middle of a term, allowing them to control the stopwatch. I don't know how that would work in America. 

 

[funhusker]

I would be all for a campaign season that only lasted a month; it sounds fantastic.

But how would we realistically limit it to that?  There is no law that can be written that wouldn't violate the 1st Amendment that would keep a person from buying ads talking about what good things they would do "if they were to run and get elected."

But I guess, just thinking as I type, that maybe it wouldn't be so bad because they might not know who their opponent would be and they would actually have to go to the work of promoting themselves instead of just blasting the other candidate.   That alone would make it all easier to stomach.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I would be all for a campaign season that only lasted a month; it sounds fantastic.

But how would we realistically limit it to that?  There is no law that can be written that wouldn't violate the 1st Amendment that would keep a person from buying ads talking about what good things they would do "if they were to run and get elected."

But I guess, just thinking as I type, that maybe it wouldn't be so bad because they might not know who their opponent would be and they would actually have to go to the work of promoting themselves instead of just blasting the other candidate.   That alone would make it all easier to stomach.

You control the primary and general election schedule. 
 

There is no reason why the primaries can’t be all done in a couple months or less. Then shorten the time between the primaries and general ejection. 

 

[funhusker]

You control the primary and general election schedule. 
 

There is no reason why the primaries can’t be all done in a couple months or less. Then shorten the time between the primaries and general ejection. 

But I could put an ad in the radio right now about what my beliefs are or how someone else would be a bad congressmen.  And I’m not even running for office.  Just because the campaign isn’t “official” doesn’t mean they won’t campaign.

 

[teachercd]

But I could put an ad in the radio right now about what my beliefs are or how someone else would be a bad congressmen.  And I’m not even running for office.  Just because the campaign isn’t “official” doesn’t mean they won’t campaign.

It could be like when a judge says "Jury, disregard that"

 

[TGHusker]

You control the primary and general election schedule. 
 

There is no reason why the primaries can’t be all done in a couple months or less. Then shorten the time between the primaries and general ejection. 

7 months max and that is even too long:

Month 1: for debates & campaigning before first of several super Tuesday primaries

Month 2:  Great Plains Regional Primary - tip of the hat to Iowa.  Smaller population - gives candidates time to refine their message before the big primaries.  From Minnesota south to Missouri, Oklahoma to Colorado, NM, Wy, Mt.  

Month 3 -  Northeast primaries - Tip of the Hat N.H.  Includes Great Lakes region and PA, NY, Costal from Maryland to Maine. 

Month 4 - South  Texas to Va

Month 5  West NV, UT Az, Ca, Or, Wash 

Month 6  Convention

Month 7 Election - first Tuesday in Nov. 

Or condense the above down to 2 primaries per month. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

7 months max and that is even too long:

Month 1: for debates & campaigning before first of several super Tuesday primaries

Month 2:  Great Plains Regional Primary - tip of the hat to Iowa.  Smaller population - gives candidates time to refine their message before the big primaries.  From Minnesota south to Missouri, Oklahoma to Colorado, NM, Wy, Mt.  

Month 3 -  Northeast primaries - Tip of the Hat N.H.  Includes Great Lakes region and PA, NY, Costal from Maryland to Maine. 

Month 4 - South  Texas to Va

Month 5  West NV, UT Az, Ca, Or, Wash 

Month 6  Convention

Month 7 Election - first Tuesday in Nov. 

Or condense the above down to 2 primaries per month. 

No need to have more than a week or two between primaries.

 

[TGHusker]

No need to have more than a week or two between primaries.

Maybe squeeze in a debate between.  Candidates will have to rely more on Media, Debates to get their message out vs large campaign events traveling from city to city.   They could pick one big city to have a rally in  Great Plains  Region - Lincoln, Omaha or Tulsa would be just fine!

 

[BigRedBuster]

But I could put an ad in the radio right now about what my beliefs are or how someone else would be a bad congressmen.  And I’m not even running for office.  Just because the campaign isn’t “official” doesn’t mean they won’t campaign.

Yep, you could.  We can only control what is controllable. What we can control is automatically causing an election process that is well over a year.  The Iowa Caucus is in mid January.  So, candidates have to start campaigning probably at least 6 months before that.  Push that first primary (because caucuses suck) July 1st. All primaries are done by August 15.  Conventions are September 1st.  They have two months to campaign for the general election.

There, you have cut down the process by at least 6 months.

 

[TGHusker]

Yep, you could.  We can only control what is controllable. What we can control is automatically causing an election process that is well over a year.  The Iowa Caucus is in mid January.  So, candidates have to start campaigning probably at least 6 months before that.  Push that first primary (because caucuses suck) July 1st. All primaries are done by August 15.  Conventions are September 1st.  They have two months to campaign for the general election.

There, you have cut down the process by at least 6 months.

So when will these parties start listening to these commonsense ideas??   

 

[BigRedBuster]

So when will these parties start listening to these commonsense ideas??   

They won't.  Because, they don't benefit from it.  The parties benefit from all of us being outraged and engaged over a long period of time.

Also, this would take coordination at the federal level.  Right now, the states control almost all of this process.  I'm all for moving this control to the federal level.  However, one party would absolutely freak out because they already are totally convinced the deep state is manipulating and  fixing the elections against them.

 

[funhusker]

So when will these parties start listening to these commonsense ideas??   

I don't get why they cant work together on something like this.  Imagine how much time/money it would save both groups!

Not to mention the timed gain to actually, you know, govern like they are elected to do...

They won't.  Because, they don't benefit from it.  The parties benefit from all of us being outraged and engaged over a long period of time.

Also, this would take coordination at the federal level.  Right now, the states control almost all of this process.  I'm all for moving this control to the federal level.  However, one party would absolutely freak out because they already are totally convinced the deep state is manipulating and  fixing the elections against them.

Gotcha...I was just looking at it through the lens of annoying commercials, phone calls, and texts.