Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
We NEED This: The Fair Elections Now Act - Remove the Corrupting Influence of Big Money In Politics : politics
But then only people who were already wealthy could afford advertising time etc.
And thus be elected...
Oh wait...
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
No, I'm pretty sure the bill takes care of that.
From the link:
How It Works
A publicly-funded candidate under the Fair Elections system goes through three basic steps: raise seed money, collect qualifying contributions to reach the required threshold, and then — once qualified — receive public funding to run a campaign.
Candidates who participate in the program agree not to raise any private money other than a small amount of seed and qualifying contributions.
During the campaign, a publicly funded candidate would be eligible to receive additional matching funds if his or her opponent was outspending him with a privately financed campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOO MY CAREFULLY CRAFTED JOKE!!!
WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS TO ME????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm...a joke, eh?
:)
Sorry but it really did seem serious, and it really did raise an obvious point, didn't it?
But the potential legislation does appear to be designed intelligently to account for the issue of wealthy candidates vs those of moderate means.
(No "intelligent design" jokes, please.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove corrupting influence of big money in politics?
That's good. A country without politicians...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've got a point - it's unlikely that any legislation possible could completely remove the corrupting appeal of power and money - but this legislation appears to go a long way.
And the other advantage is that politicians wouldn't have to spend all their time raising money and would be able to actually focus on issues .
And when they no longer would have lobbyists influencing them...well, it truly would be a new day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am in favor also of the two-term limit for all politicians.
We need to renew the minds in congress.
One once said: "politicians and diapers have to be changed periodically for the same reason" and that's the most correct thing I ever heard.
I think politicians should not be allowed to receive any money.
You don't need big money to run a campain if you do as it is done in other countries.
Each political party has X hours of free advertisement in all televisions and radios.
So, they manage their time and advertise their candidates using the allowed time.
It is obvious that lobbists have to be banned from any contact with any politician...
And we have to have this two term maximum time one has to be allowed to serve in any public position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we were able to remove (to the extent possible) the effect of big monied interests in politics, and at the same time reduce or eliminate those earmarks which are pure pork, term limits would not be necessary.
The reason I don't like them is that they punish and remove people who are consistently doing a great job.
Fair elections are a far better way to separate the wheat from the chaff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And all candidates should file something like a business plan, while running for some position.
The "business plan" has to detail what he/she pretends to do on each year of its term.
After each year an evaluation should be done and some penalty applied in case of not reaching some point - for example a fine or the candidate returning part of his/her salary for not reaching the promised goals.
False promises have to end.
We have to have professional people well intentioned running the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can understand why you might come up with an idea such as that, but I believe it would be impractical, as an individual legislator's ability to get things done is going to be affected by things outside his/her control, such as the other party, or economic events such as the one we've just witnessed, etc.
Sometimes it's not a case of false promises, when legislators aren't able to make good on what they want to do, although there certainly are those who make them.
Sometimes, also, the legislator wisely must make a decision to compromise.
We don't want legislators to cling to campaign promises when compromise that represents the greater good is needed.
A far better plan is to have educated and sensible voters who are keeping score themselves.
If the person is not producing, out he goes.
The solution may lay in better voter education.
But in the meantime, this legislation sounds to me as if it can help by leveling the playing field.
If a good politician doesn't have to start worrying about re-election from the moment they're first elected, that will help.
And if each person running has a more or less even chance, because the money for each will be the same, that will help enormously as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 words.... Instant runoff voting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a nice idea, but something is bothering me.
Campaign finance reform has had a tendency to protect the two party system as well as incumbents.
Thus, requiring candidates to receive a "large number" of contributions in order to receive public funding is concerning.
The FAQ states "These numbers will generally allow only serious candidates with broad appeal to qualify." This could reasonably be interpreted as "Republicans and Democrats get public funding and the others are on their own." Would that be the case?
I honestly can't say.
But I will say that whenever we examine government policy we should watch out for unintended consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|