Another Supreme Court Opinion Empowering the Powerless
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
It is now the law of the land. Liberals will just accept it and move on. Right?
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Amen bro
cawacko
Well-known member
I was pretty surprised to see this view posted on the SF Chronicle website but it's a blog post about public financing of California elections. I thought it dove tailed with the SC decision.
Is public financing the answer for crooked politicians?
Do California taxpayers really want to pay to elect Leland Yee to office?
If you read a lot of the commentary about the now-suspended state senator and not-going-to-be secretary of state, you’d think that’s the quick and easy answer to the political scandals roiling the state capital.
On Monday, for example, it was state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg who weighed in on Yee’s legal troubles, saying that while he wished the indicted San Francisco legislator would just go away already, the current campaign money system bears a big part of the blame.
“We have a system in this country that is awful,” Steinberg told reporters. “People running for office, people who hold office, have to raise money to get elected and stay elected. And they have to raise money from the very interests that come before them and ask for their support or opposition on legislative matters. It’s a bad thing. … Maybe this ignites another real discussion about replacing (this) system.”
“Replacing the system” is Sacramento-speak for public financing of campaigns, which would bar anyone running for any state office from accepting all but the smallest campaign contributions and make up the difference with cash from the state treasury.
If that sounds familiar, it should. A public financing measure was on the November 2006 ballot as Proposition 89, which called for raising taxes on corporations and financial institutions to provide the new “public” financing.
It lost, 26 percent to 74 percent.
While politicians behaving badly can only help the good government groups backing public financing, there’s little indication California voters have dropped their overriding objection to the plan: “Why should I pay the campaign bills for someone I don’t like?”
Added to that is the problem of deciding where those public funds will come from, who gets them and how much is needed for each Assembly, state Senate, Board of Equalization and state constitutional officer campaigns.
And the U.S. Supreme Court says it’s unconstitutional to limit the amount of money a candidate may contribute to his or her own campaign, which means Meg Whitman could still pump $144 million of her own money into a run for governor.
Most of all, there’s the question of whether eliminating the endless search for campaign cash would turn grifters into honest politicians.
The FBI affidavit filed in connection with the Yee case alleged that he was desperately hitting folks up for money to pay off his debt from a 2011 run for mayor. But it also contained indications that Yee wouldn’t have gone straight had he actually been elected.
According to the affidavit, Yee told an undercover federal agent posing as a mobster that “there’s a tremendous opportunity in local level. … Whoever’s going to be the mayor controls everything.”
Yee also noted that if he was elected mayor, “we control $6.8 billion, man.”
There are plenty of arguments for and against public financing, and California is going to hear them all as the scandals surrounding Yee and two other state senators, Ron Calderon and Rod Wright, play out. One argument that will be tough for proponents to counter, however, is that an honest politician doesn’t take dirty money to run his campaign. And a dishonest one won’t stop there.
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05electio...financing-the-answer-for-crooked-politicians/
Is public financing the answer for crooked politicians?
Do California taxpayers really want to pay to elect Leland Yee to office?
If you read a lot of the commentary about the now-suspended state senator and not-going-to-be secretary of state, you’d think that’s the quick and easy answer to the political scandals roiling the state capital.
On Monday, for example, it was state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg who weighed in on Yee’s legal troubles, saying that while he wished the indicted San Francisco legislator would just go away already, the current campaign money system bears a big part of the blame.
“We have a system in this country that is awful,” Steinberg told reporters. “People running for office, people who hold office, have to raise money to get elected and stay elected. And they have to raise money from the very interests that come before them and ask for their support or opposition on legislative matters. It’s a bad thing. … Maybe this ignites another real discussion about replacing (this) system.”
“Replacing the system” is Sacramento-speak for public financing of campaigns, which would bar anyone running for any state office from accepting all but the smallest campaign contributions and make up the difference with cash from the state treasury.
If that sounds familiar, it should. A public financing measure was on the November 2006 ballot as Proposition 89, which called for raising taxes on corporations and financial institutions to provide the new “public” financing.
It lost, 26 percent to 74 percent.
While politicians behaving badly can only help the good government groups backing public financing, there’s little indication California voters have dropped their overriding objection to the plan: “Why should I pay the campaign bills for someone I don’t like?”
Added to that is the problem of deciding where those public funds will come from, who gets them and how much is needed for each Assembly, state Senate, Board of Equalization and state constitutional officer campaigns.
And the U.S. Supreme Court says it’s unconstitutional to limit the amount of money a candidate may contribute to his or her own campaign, which means Meg Whitman could still pump $144 million of her own money into a run for governor.
Most of all, there’s the question of whether eliminating the endless search for campaign cash would turn grifters into honest politicians.
The FBI affidavit filed in connection with the Yee case alleged that he was desperately hitting folks up for money to pay off his debt from a 2011 run for mayor. But it also contained indications that Yee wouldn’t have gone straight had he actually been elected.
According to the affidavit, Yee told an undercover federal agent posing as a mobster that “there’s a tremendous opportunity in local level. … Whoever’s going to be the mayor controls everything.”
Yee also noted that if he was elected mayor, “we control $6.8 billion, man.”
There are plenty of arguments for and against public financing, and California is going to hear them all as the scandals surrounding Yee and two other state senators, Ron Calderon and Rod Wright, play out. One argument that will be tough for proponents to counter, however, is that an honest politician doesn’t take dirty money to run his campaign. And a dishonest one won’t stop there.
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05electio...financing-the-answer-for-crooked-politicians/
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Nope, term limits are the solution.
Makes no difference, just speeds up trading one puppet for the next. WVa was pretty happy with Robert Byrd as he brought the bacon very well. Mass liked Teddy the K, somewhere in Texas and Ron Paul, etc. The ONLY way to stop corruption is to subtract money from politics completly. Publish platforms, the media will be delighted to print/air them. If some organization wants to foot the bill for debates, fine. If media wants to air it, fine. But no ads. Wouldnt that be nice ? Am I the only one who would be delighted to never see another political ad ?
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Except you CAN'T take money out. Are you saying that I, a private individual, can't express my political opinions? Well that's the entire point of the 1A.
But term limits does a few things. It reduces incentive for large investments, because you won't get your moneys worth, it reduces incentive to take said money, because you can't use it (if you can't get reelected, why buy ad time?), and it allows actual reform to take place. Because as it is now, the people that are supposed to reform the system are the ones benefit the most for it remaining the same. Right now you CAN'T elect reformers because of seniority. Even if we, as a nation, were somehow able to elect 33 new senators all hell bent on ending corruption, they wouldn't be able to. They'd need to sit a few terms to gain seniority, and then MAYBE they'd get a shot at being on a bullshit committee, and THEN maybe after a couple more terms (provided they play along of course), they'd get a chance to be on an important committee.
Term limits would completely change that dynamic.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm just throwing out there Leyland Yee was getting term limited out of his State Senator seat and was going to run for Secretary of State in CA so as long as he had a new office to run for...
Spending money is not free speech, its spending money but you do point out the crux of the matter. Fix that mistake and there you have it. Your argument regarding some sort of disincentive is addressed already except that one's donation never lasts longer than one term anyway. Because of committees, the limits have to be > 1 to boot. Money does nothing positive in elections, nothing.
cawacko
Well-known member
In this election system you envision where there is no money involved how do you determine who should be put on a ballot whether its for Mayor, Senator or President?
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Exactly. Gotta cap public service too. No more than 20 years total (local, state and federal combined), no more than two terms per office, and no concurrent terms.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Spending money means getting air time. So I can't, theoretically, start my own talk show and talk about things of a political nature? Of course you're not saying that. But because I CAN do that, money cannot be taken out of the system.
Their party submits one, they're on.
Talk about politics all you want. But only the platform can be presented as fact. Everything else is personal opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
I think it's so funny watching plebes all happy that multi-billionaires will be able to buy elections and legislation even more easily. It's like watching chickens line up for Colonel Saunders' autograph.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Which is the point...if everyone is entitled to their opinion, than that means everyone is entitled to broadcast it. And if they're entitled to broadcast it, you cannot take money out of the equation.
If they can afford to buy airplay fine. If they want to give someobe else money, that is not their free speech its just money changing hands. I get that you dont want to take money out, its scary to run strictly on policy. But it worked ok 200 years ago, better than the nonsense we have now.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
You mean like Adelson bought the election for Gingrich?
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
I think today's decision may bode well for Hobby Lobby case