This prompts some questions.

Could ads show a politican’s picture?

Isn’t an attack on the Iraq War an attack on Bush? Does an ad about the war count as “no reference?”

Were the Swift Boat ads “issue ads?”

Could you make a reference to our “current leadership” at all?

Do blogs count? Newspapers? What about cable or satellite radio?

It all depends on who gets to make and interpret your rules….

These are important questions.

Under your system, who answers them? A committee? Of whom? Congress? The head of the FCC (a Bush crony)?

Your ideas here are nothing but fertile ground for lawyers, who will argue endlessly (and expensively) about what constitutes a “reference.”

So it won’t work, and it will only make things more complex.

For example, presumably you would not allow Merck Pharmaceuticals to give money to John Corzine. Suppose the Pharmeceutical Manufacturer’s Association wants to cut him a check? Still illegal? Suppose it wants to have him speak at their conference? I assume that’s OK. But Corzine doesn’t speak for free. What is fair compensation for a US senator’s speech? $5,000? $50,000? $1 million? Do you know (and how do you know)? Are you going to tell Corzine how he can spend that money- i.e. tell him it can’t be used in his campaign? How? And considering that money is a fungible asset, how are you going to prove that he is spending it only on himself and not his “campaign?”

This endless desire to regulate political activity empowers a Big Brother type government that would make J. Edgar Hoover blush.

It makes criminals out of all politicians, and enables others to use “the law” to get people they don’t like.

It would just be easier to ban political speech by anyone but politicians and their campaigns.

But you would not be for that (I hope).

You continue to make references to the out-of-touch politicians and their corporate friends who refuse to yield to the will of the people. I agree that our politicians are loathsome creatures, but what specific policies are you talking about?

As for money in politics, be thankful there is not more of it. The entire election circuit in 2000 (all elections in the house, Senate and executive) cost $3 billion.

That is a ton of money, until you put into perspective.

Americans spent ten times that on dog food!

Carl- To proclaim something as unworkable without really trying to do it is a bit defeatist, isn’t it? Or does the status quo just seem all that appealing?

Keeping in mind that when the constitution was written, businesses were not legally viewed as having the same “inalienable rights” as human beings, nor did freedom of the press refer to television or radio profit margins, I don’t know that I would agree with tose interpretations of the constitution that would protect the rights of a corporation over the rights of individuals. Nor would I interpret it to be an invitation for Congress to dispose of the public domain just so a corporation could make a lot of money. My reforms do limit “group think donations” and instead rely on the individual to speak for themselves. My reforms allow for the public to get some benefit from what is rightfully thiers. I know my folks didn’t have a say in who got to use radio frequencies, nor did I. Freedom of the press refers to the right to publish news that is factual or ideas that are opinions without fear of governmental reprisal. It is about keeping an eye on the government and reporting to the people the things that government is doing. It is about protecting the words, not the method of delivery, especially an intangible, publically owned method like radio and television delivery.

I would agree that it is not difficult for “person with a coherent message” to get support from the major parties, especially when they adhere to that parties espoused platform. I submit though that the very “grooming” you refer to only exacerbates the cynical system that we have in place. Look at our politicians today. This esteemed grooming process just makes sure that those who play the game of greased palms and back scratching parties can get in the door while those with an eye for reform or Common Sense are shut out, kept away from the publics eye. The problem of only looking for like minded people is you discount reform because you don’t even look for it.

Which brings us to the whole motivation thing you mention. If I care about political corruption and want to get involved to set things straight, yet I can’t even get my name on the ballot because I’ve not been groomed, where does the motivation go, for both the voter and the would be candidate?

Dubious reforms only seem dubious to those who hold the reins of power and are wont to let them go. Still, if you read the article, you should have noted that I place plenty of blame on the rest of us, for it is our own lack of involvment that has let the problem fester so.

Thanks for the comment.

Having been a candidate for a small local office, I can assure you that it is not that difficult for a qualified candidate to garner support. If you are an intelligent person with a coherent message, you can find the support and backing if you look hard enough. Both the Republicans and Democrats are always grooming candidates by using lower offices like planning groups and school boards. And there are plenty of groups who will endorse and support like-minded candidates.

There are many qualified individuals who just need the motivation to run. This can be accomplished with our without passing reforms that are of questionable constitutional validity. It would seem to me your message should focus on increasing involvement of the voters on a grassroots level, not passing dubious reforms.

Island Rep- Uncommon sense is still sensible, just not readily accepted or appreciated due to a fear of change. Practicality is also only a state of mind, one which can be overcome, if the interests of people are put ahead of the interests of the dollar and the desire to hold on to power for power’s sake.

Sometimes it is helpful to read things more than once. If you had, you’d see that my thoughts on free political advertising was reserved for the general election (after the primaries) at which point only those who have advanced in the process would get the publicity. While this could indeed include “fringe” party candidates, in by no means is all inclusive to anyone who throws their hat into the ring. Obviously, some “cut-off” point would be drawn during the process.

And if you really think that the current political system is working, I have to question for whom it is working. Certainly not the common man and woman toiling to stay above water as costs rise, education suffers, and corporation make all the rules through their proxy legislators.

Thanks for dropping by and leaving some thoughts though.

Rambler Joe- Although there are laws on the books regarding campaign financing, they have enough loopholes to drive a truck through. We need to have laws that are “unskirtable” for any real semblance of change to occur.

I mentioned that contributions should only come from citizens, and even mentioned a $1,000 limit. You want to make that a pre-tax contribution? I have no trouble with that idea.

I agree that we need to make the system more accessible to a wider variety of candidates instead of limiting the real exposure to only those from the democratic or republican ticket.

Glad to hear your ideas.

Shea-I still think that average citizens should be able to support (financially) the candidate of their choice, but I can’t find too much fault with your ideas. Indeed, it would require people to pay more attention to the people running and not rely only on the sound bites we get today.

And personal political contributions (with a cap) would necessarily make candidates beholden to a specific set of donors, especially if we made the donations “blind.” The donors know to whom they give their money, but the candidates themselves would not.

Green eyed lady- Glad you stopped in and left some thoughts again. It’s been a while since I’ve heard from you. Change can come, but only from an involved citizenry. People need to come back to the table, but we need to fix the rules that would allow more honest debate and candidates to be involved too.

Windspike- Politics needn’t be sexy though, just honest. And I think that a more open political process is very important for any real change to occur. And I too think that all change must come from the grass roots level, since those who currently hold the reins of power won’t eagerly let things go.

Tom- Certainly free advertising would be a first step towards leveling the playing field, but it alone can’t fix everything. And campaign donations could still help lesser known candidates compete in the non-advertising parts of elections…like paying for meeting halls, political assistants, and the like.

Good to hear from you on this.

If some fringe party with $8 to its name is competing with the Democrats and Republicans, they’ll all get the same amount of free advertising. Rightwingers will say that’s Socialism (or something less printable), but too bad. It’s the one way I can think of to totally make an end run around the wealth discrepancy. I don’t think any kind of campaign finance reform is workable. Wealthy people will always find a way to get their money channeled into their pet causes. The only thing we can do is make campaign donations irrelevant.

Shea’s point about giving – outright – equal amounts of time for each and every candidate may go a long way, but certainly is not attractive or sexy for folks used to watching Paris Hilton bumble about America for kicks and giggles.

Ken’s post brings to mind one image for me – the person at your local grocery store soliciting signatures for a ballot measure or for some candidate to get on the ballot. I always ask, before I sign any pettition (for a person or a cause), how much is the person doing the work getting paid per signature and who’s paying them. This trips them up because mainly folks don’t care or are not informed about who is behind that person standing in front of you asking for your signature. Often, they are getting paid about a dollar a signature. If they dont’ say, then I don’t sign. If they do say, then I ask them what they are going to pay me for my signature. Usually, they don’t pay me anything. However, I think the days of honest individuals volunteering their time to support candidates has long since gone out the window.

In the end, the inequity of our political process needs to be leveled – and that has to come with some reform of both how people get on ballots and how they fund their campaigns. Those with large sums of capital can out-snazzy you in the infomercial, but certainly, the less sexy the official may be, perhaps, the right candidate for us. As it stands today, you can’t get in unless you are of independent means (or some one or group of people are willing to pac fund you). Back in May, we were talking about this very problem: http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/05/here-pac-there-pac-everywhere-pac-pac.html

Rendering a solution, will be tricky, because as you mention – the current set of politicians are not interested in changing the status quo that got them in a position where they can ardently protect their pocketbooks. It would be interesting to set campaign finance reform in motion, starting at the grass roots, becuase that may indeed be the only way it can be accomplished.

The idea is taken from ethics policies regarding conflict-of-interest that are already in place for public employees. Example: public employees are forbidden to accept gifts from the public because it so obviously implies potential favoritism that it is viewed as a serious violation of ethics. As a public employee, I have been warned against accepting even a plate of holiday cookies from a client. Imagine how it would look for me to accept thousands of dollars as a “gift.” The strings attached are as obvious as the ones holding up the flying saucer in Plan 9 from Outer Space.

With my plan, however, each candidate would be given the exact same amount of media time (print and broadcast) to explain their platform, including debates. No glossy media blitz, no psychologically manipulative advertising designed by marketing wizards to twist minds with subjective propaganda, no taking a year of time from the job they were elected for to go off on campaign junkets. Just a couple of months of plain, unglamorized, unvarnished, straightforward explanations of who the candidates are and what they intend to do. “Boring!” the public would cry, at first. But the best possible situation, I say. Candidates with no strings attached.

I would propose something very different as part of the solution: allow every American the opportunity to contribute a (capped) portion of his or her income to one or more campaigns or PACs, pre-tax.

Elections are often ‘won’ by corporate interests long before the polls open, by limiting the candidates on the ballot to those few who have garnered adequate campaign funds.

Imagine the impact of allowing Green Party candidates, for example, direct access to funds from voters who’ve indicated that they share environmental concerns by contributing to a PAC as part of their federal tax return. Result: far more money for Green Party campaign advertising and far more viable candidates.

Regardless of any particular ideology, this solution supports a far more democratic electoral process by involving people earlier in the process.

Having “free” advertising on commerical broadcasters would attract every kook party. They would want the “free” advertising. Since you want the no party support, you will cut back the support system for candidates.

The U.S. has done pretty well with its current political system. It is not the best system, but it works.