Bigdog (09-15-2020)
"Variations in state campaign finance regulations across states and over time provide an opportunity to test the effects of reforms on the electoral success of incumbent state legislators. We use the most recent state legislative election returns dataset to test whether state campaign finance reforms help or hinder incumbents. Our analysis of nearly 66,000 contests in 33 years reveals that campaign contribution limits and partial public financing have little impact on incumbent reelection prospects. However, full public financing and prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures significantly increase the probability of incumbent reelection."
https://politicalsciencenow.com/do-c...iciIGC0cTJNcwc
Bigdog (09-15-2020)
duh
Celticguy (09-15-2020)
Bigdog (09-15-2020)
You hear a lot of things from statists. Much of it is lies. If you need help sifting through their bullshit, you can just ring me up. I didn't need to read this article to tell me what you posted. I already knew it. How you may ask?
Easy. Experience guided by common sense.
Why would ANY politician pass a law that would keep them from keeping their lucrative jobs? It is like nimrods who think these same politicians will pass tax laws that will negatively impact them.
But, you were told that the Wu Flu was a big deal but it really wasn't. You get played a lot. I can help you with that
Phantasmal (09-15-2020)
They don't legislate on behalf of constituents any more with these reforms than without them. The point is that reforms reduce competition and benefit incumbents.
All constituents are special interests and most legislation benefits some groups and hurts others. It is impossible to avoid this outcome.
Corporations could make independent expenditures before Citizens United. I assume some states must have full public financing because of the study. Incumbents often set campaign contributions and total spending limits too low because it limits competition.
The U. S. presidential general election was fully publicly funded from 1976 until 2008 when Obama chose not to take the public funds because he would be limited in total and per state spending. The D and R nominees could accept public funding and could raise no outside funds. They could spend only the total amount of the federal grant and each state had a limit based on population.
The nomination process was partially publicly funded. The federal government matched privately raised money up to set limits.
This is not the complete article but a short summary (not much more than was in the abstract).
https://phys.org/news/2020-07-campai...mpetitive.html
But weren't those independent expenditures limited, in fact, severely limited, now, limitations are rare, and seemingly an incumbent, given they have had time in office, could benefit the corporation's interests so that funding next time was easier, something a new candidate would not have the ability to do. Can't see unlimited corporate money in an election not benefiting an incumbent
And those
Flash, if a politician is no longer getting campaign contributions from corporations or PACs, how is that politician going to get re-elected? By legislating on behalf of their constituents...you know...doing their actual job.
What competition? If a politician is elected and passes legislation their constituents want, why wouldn't they be re-elected? Why shouldn't they be re-elected?The point is that reforms reduce competition and benefit incumbents.
Part of the antipathy towards elected politicians is the perception that they don't work for their constituents.
So in a system where they don't have to beg for campaign money, how would they go about getting re-elected? BY DOING THEIR JOB.
Stop.All constituents are special interests
This is sophistry.
Expanding the definition of "special interests" to say that every voter is a special interest.
Yes, Flash, precisely.
So to get re-elected, a politician must do...what, in this reform scenario?
Well that's a broad, vague thing to say.most legislation benefits some groups and hurts others.
How does Medicare for All hurt you?
So then you would prefer a system where your choice of elected representatives is made for you? Sounds anti-democratic to me.It is impossible to avoid this outcome.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
— Joe Biden on Obama.
Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.
D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.
Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".
It is also that once you are in office, you meet the people who want something. That makes raising money much more efficient.Unfortunately pols spend over a third of their day asking for money.
We need campaign finance reform. Only funded by tax payers, no outside money.
Bookmarks