Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition?

[Flash]

Of course they would be!

Flash, you're being ridiculous.




What studies? What are you talking about? Are those studies of OTHER countries, or just of the US?

Ummm...in a public campaign finance system, I wouldn't get any money....so I'd be free to vote how the people wanted me to vote. And I would know how they wanted me to vote by listening to them, which I can do because I don't have to spend 90% of my time begging for money from rich people and corporations.

No, I wasn't talking about in a public finance system but the current system. Are you saying you would vote against something you supported because you got money from the other side? If your constituents wanted you to vote for it wouldn't you win because you pleased them?

How many people do you think you could listen to in order to determine how your constituents feel about the issue? How do you know if they are representative of your entire district?

What if more people supported it but fewer of them are likely to vote than its opponents? If you are willing to change your vote because some group gave you money wouldn't you also be willing to change your vote to please the most voters?

Wanting to follow the wishes of your constituents sounds good but members seldom know what that is. They are more likely to hear from opponents measures. Of course, they should know their district well enough to know about major issues that would affect them. A clean air bill that would cause significant job loss (even if neither side gave any donations) is something most constituents would oppose.

But most legislation is not such an easy decision. Most voters will be unaware of most issues and have no opinions of most things you will vote on leaving the decision to you.

 

[LV426]

No, I wasn't talking about in a public finance system but the current system. Are you saying you would vote against something you supported because you got money from the other side? If your constituents wanted you to vote for it wouldn't you win because you pleased them?

I'm saying money would have no influence on my decision, and I think it's weird that you think that's weird.

It's almost as if you're trying to gate-keep democracy by charging access fees to your elected representatives. That's the system you seem OK with, and the one you're describing.

 

[Flash]

OK, but from whom did they raise that money? Not millions of individual donors...rather, a handful of very wealthy donors (and we can check that on OpenSecrets).

Now, you would have us believe that handful of very wealthy donors carries the same influence with that politician as one of their constituents who makes $8.25/hr.

Do you really, truly believe that, Flash?

A million donors who make $8.25 who give $5 each is much more than a wealthy donor contributes (current limit is about $2800) and a million more votes.

Obama is a good example of this where he raised much of his money on the internet from small contributors.

 

[LV426]

How many people do you think you could listen to in order to determine how your constituents feel about the issue? How do you know if they are representative of your entire district

Well gee, this is all about servicing constituents, isn't it? Hosting town halls. Doing interviews. Holding sessions in your offices for the public to come and chat with you. Reading and responding to constituent letters and calls. Basically, what the job is supposed to be. I know this probably foreign to you because of how lazy you are, but look at AOC and how she does it...she's out there, hosting town halls, hosting constituents in her offices, being active and connecting with them in person, via social media, etc.

It can be done, it just requires someone not to be lazy. So if you're lazy, politics is probably not the job for you.

You'd be amazed how many people you can talk to in 24 months.

 

[LV426]

What if more people supported it but fewer of them are likely to vote than its opponents? If you are willing to change your vote because some group gave you money wouldn't you also be willing to change your vote to please the most voters

Then they can vote me out in the next election if they don't like what I did.

So instead of competing for cash in that election, I would have to defend my record.

That's the point, Flash.

 

[LV426]

If you are willing to change your vote because some group gave you money wouldn't you also be willing to change your vote to please the most voters?

Flash just invented representative democracy.

 

[Flash]

I'm saying money would have no influence on my decision, and I think it's weird that you think that's weird.

It's almost as if you're trying to gate-keep democracy by charging access fees to your elected representatives. That's the system you seem OK with, and the one you're describing.

You said money would have no influence on your decision if you received public financing. That was not my question.

Under the current system would you vote for Medicare for All if the supporters gave you $0 and the opponents gave you $50,000?

I said nothing about that being weird. Why do you think I did?

 

[LV426]

Wanting to follow the wishes of your constituents sounds good but members seldom know what that is.

Right, and why? Because they're spending all their time trying to get money from rich people and corporations, and they're not spending time with their constituents.

If they were all freed of the burden of having to fundraise, what do you think they would do with their time?

 

[LV426]

Wanting to follow the wishes of your constituents sounds good but members seldom know what that is. They are more likely to hear from opponents measures. Of course, they should know their district well enough to know about major issues that would affect them. A clean air bill that would cause significant job loss (even if neither side gave any donations) is something most constituents would oppose.

I think I figured out what your problem is...you simply cannot conceive of a system that doesn't put money first.

If an elected representative was freed of having to fundraise, what do you think they would do with their time?

 

[Flash]

Flash just invented representative democracy.

But that assumes you are more interested in getting elected than voting for something you think is good for the nation.

Of course, the founders did not think representatives were supposed to make decisions to please the majority but for the best interest of the nation. That is not representative of the public but they felt it was the main function of government.

 

[LV426]

But most legislation is not such an easy decision. Most voters will be unaware of most issues and have no opinions of most things you will vote on leaving the decision to you.

They're unaware because they're not being engaged.

That's it. That's all it is.

They're not engaged because the representative doesn't have time to engage with them because that representative is spending 90% of their time raising money from rich people and corporations, many of whom don't even live or have a presence in their district.

By freeing elected reps of that burden, suddenly 90% of their schedule opens up. And a good representative would use the entire 90% of their time they just got back doing their actual fucking job which is to legislate and listen to constituents.

2 years is a loooooooooooooong time. For some districts, too much time because of how sparsely populated they are.

I believe that most elected reps, if given that 90% of their time back, would use that time to get more in touch with their constituents, to inform them of the issues, to listen to their concerns, and to just do the basic duties required of our representatives.

And I don't understand how anyone could be opposed to that.

 

[Flash]

Right, and why? Because they're spending all their time trying to get money from rich people and corporations, and they're not spending time with their constituents.

If they were all freed of the burden of having to fundraise, what do you think they would do with their time?

If they spent no time raising money they would still have no clue how most of their constituents feel no matter how much they wanted to do so. It is an impossible task. They can't poll people about every vote and most voters would not be familiar with the issue to give an opinion.

 

[LV426]

A million donors who make $8.25 who give $5 each is much more than a wealthy donor contributes (current limit is about $2800) and a million more votes.

Apart from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (and maybe AOC), no politician is pulling in those kinds of numbers from small donors.

And the only reason Bernie and Warren are able to is because they spend most of their time with their constituents, not raising money at fundraisers.

So...

Obama is a good example of this where he raised much of his money on the internet from small contributors.

So...Obama in 2008 eschewed the public campaign financing so that he could get more from large donors. Which he did. Like I said earlier when I talked about PHARMA and HIPPA influencing Obamacare...that's why we didn't get a Public Option or single payer.

Also, apart from Obama, Sanders, Warren, and maybe AOC, no politician is going to pull those kinds of numbers from small donors.

 

[Flash]

I think I figured out what your problem is...you simply cannot conceive of a system that doesn't put money first.

If an elected representative was freed of having to fundraise, what do you think they would do with their time?

You are completely missing the point. I don't think money determines their actions--you are the one saying our behavior is dictated by money.

That is usually the attitude of people who are more motivated by money, themselves, and assume it also motivates everybody else.

 

[LV426]

A million donors who make $8.25 who give $5 each is much more than a wealthy donor contributes (current limit is about $2800) and a million more votes.

Obama is a good example of this where he raised much of his money on the internet from small contributors.

Also, it takes very little effort to fundraise from small donors. Like, very very little effort.

They're not spending 90% of their time writing fundraising e-mails and sending them out.

They're spending 90% of their time calling big donors first.

So if money is speech, then there is no such thing as free speech, and some people have more speech than others.

Does that sound democratic to you?

 

[LV426]

You said money would have no influence on your decision if you received public financing. That was not my question.

Well, I would never run for office in any other environment, so I don't know what you're trying to do here, Flash.

What you seem to be doing is helping me make the case that public campaign financing will result in more civic engagement, which will result in higher voter turnout, which will result in bigger policies.

Sorry...how is that bad?

 

[LV426]

Under the current system would you vote for Medicare for All if the supporters gave you $0 and the opponents gave you $50,000?

I mean, I personally would vote for it regardless of what money was donated to me, so I don't understand where you're trying to lead me here.

You put it perfectly a couple posts ago when you tried to sarcastically say that politicians would compete for the most votes instead of the most money, and you said it like it was a bad thing.

 

[LV426]

But that assumes you are more interested in getting elected than voting for something you think is good for the nation.

Well, I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.

And it find it weird that you do.

 

[Sailor]

Flash is kicking ass on this thread. LV looks like a whipped puppy.

 

[LV426]

If they spent no time raising money they would still have no clue how most of their constituents feel

Ah, but they could find out how their constituents feel, couldn't they? After all, 90% of their schedule just opened up.

It is an impossible task.

Only if you're incredibly lazy.

They can't poll people about every vote and most voters would not be familiar with the issue to give an opinion.

Well, then isn't it the job of the representative to inform their constituents of legislation??????

Isn't that the fucking job, Flash? To represent people?

How can you represent them if you don't spend time with them?

Your argument seems to revolve around laziness, which your arguments typically do. It's not impossible to inform and understand your constituency. AOC does it every freaking day. So if a 30 year old former bartender can do it, why can't a fat, old white guy?