(no subject)
5/10/13 17:56![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
enders-shadow.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAbsurd idea for political spending limit:
The amount of money spent on a campaign cannot be more money than will be earned by the candidate in his or her term of tenure. If a position pays 100,000 a year, and is for 2 years, the campaign cannot spend over 200,000. If it's for president, and the presidency pays 400,000 a year, and is for 4 years, the campaign cannot spend over 1.6 million. And so forth for all govt positions.
Never happen, but interesting way to slice the pie. The idea came up watching Jesse Ventura. He says he only raised 300-something thousands in his campaign but earned 480,000(120K/year) in his tenure. So he earned more than he spent to get the job. (I do not believe he meant to imply it was all his money. To be clear, I'd wager that the 300-something thousand dollars he spent were not all his own and he wasn't saying it was.)
It is an interesting point. Spending a million dollars (or more) to get a job that earns you half-million in income? Something odd about that. (To my knowledge, congressional campaigns are like that. They're position is shorter, so they spend a million to earn 300K?)
Now here's a poll. I know some folks will reject this cause freedom of speech, money is speech, but for those of us who think that a limit of money in politics is a good thing to search for (and not an evil to fight against) the question is how or where do we draw the line. What do y'all think about this drawing of the line?
[Poll #1937310]
The amount of money spent on a campaign cannot be more money than will be earned by the candidate in his or her term of tenure. If a position pays 100,000 a year, and is for 2 years, the campaign cannot spend over 200,000. If it's for president, and the presidency pays 400,000 a year, and is for 4 years, the campaign cannot spend over 1.6 million. And so forth for all govt positions.
Never happen, but interesting way to slice the pie. The idea came up watching Jesse Ventura. He says he only raised 300-something thousands in his campaign but earned 480,000(120K/year) in his tenure. So he earned more than he spent to get the job. (I do not believe he meant to imply it was all his money. To be clear, I'd wager that the 300-something thousand dollars he spent were not all his own and he wasn't saying it was.)
It is an interesting point. Spending a million dollars (or more) to get a job that earns you half-million in income? Something odd about that. (To my knowledge, congressional campaigns are like that. They're position is shorter, so they spend a million to earn 300K?)
Now here's a poll. I know some folks will reject this cause freedom of speech, money is speech, but for those of us who think that a limit of money in politics is a good thing to search for (and not an evil to fight against) the question is how or where do we draw the line. What do y'all think about this drawing of the line?
[Poll #1937310]
(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 22:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 08:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 22:11 (UTC)But the problem is, if all that were eliminated, then the only way for candidates to reach people who weren't looking for them is by getting cozy with the media. And the media would have huge power in who gets elected, it would be who they choose to cover.
Here's a novel idea: The only candidates who get to be in the debates are the ones who raise a lot of money, but instead of spending that money on radio and tv adds, 80-90% of it gets donated to charity.
(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 22:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 22:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 23:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 23:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 23:28 (UTC)So if right now the congressional income is 300K for two years (fuzzy math, the numbers vary I imagine) then incumbents and non-incumbents alike can only spend that much. If pay is raised to 400K for two years, then incumbents and non-incumbents are both given the new limit of 400K. I don't quite understand what you are saying.
(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 23:32 (UTC)It wouldn't, it would just remove the teeth from the spirit of it.
Regardless, your idea kneecaps challengers and should be discarded based on that alone.
(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 23:40 (UTC)how does it: "your idea kneecaps challengers and should be discarded based
on that alone." How?
(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 23:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 23:46 (UTC)How much did Jesse Ventura's opponent spend I wonder....
(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 23:48 (UTC)Didn't say that. I'm saying that being an incumbent creates a natural advantage that is padded by arbitrary and unnecessary spending/fundraising limits.
How much did Jesse Ventura's opponent spend I wonder....
We know Ventura only had to spend about $300k, given that he was very famous at the time. See the problem?
(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 00:52 (UTC)Good day, sir.
(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 01:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 09:04 (UTC)/disappoint
(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 09:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 23:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 00:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 00:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 00:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 01:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 09:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 14:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 16:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 02:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 09:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/13 23:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 05:00 (UTC)(I mean besides the seven states that only have one representative)(SEVEN??...I was surprised)
Actually that was mostly rhetorical, I could probably look it up. I have always taken gerrymandering for granted since I learned about it back in the 5th grade. But it has been brought up several times lately like it's some new device used by Republicans to retain control forever.
(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 00:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 04:56 (UTC)No expensive smear ads on TV, you gotta break out the poster board and Sharpies
(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 09:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 14:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 16:36 (UTC)Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting money out of politics. But placing arbitrary limits to money in politics doesn't fundamentally address the problem. Forcing full disclosure and transparency onto political campaigns seems a more adequate measure to me. Fine, let them spend huge amounts of money on campaigning. But make the origin of every dollar be known to the public. Then the public will be able to take their informed decisions.
(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 18:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 18:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 19:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 19:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 19:15 (UTC)that day may not be today
(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 19:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 19:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 19:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 19:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 19:46 (UTC)Note how the "dark side" is as Yoda said it was--quicker, easier. (less steps)
(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 19:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 17:39 (UTC)As for poll. I believe that all political campaigns (especially in mass-media) by all candidates must be financed in equal parts by budget. It is not usual, but it is really the competitions of programms and not the competition of money summs. Its funny, but such situation was by elections to Soviets (officially supreme body of legislative power in USSR) in the periods 1937 -1984. The problem was only that you need to be a proved communist to participate in the campaign and KGB (NKVD) controled your biography very punctually. Because of punctuall control from KGB (NKVD) nobody wanted to be a candidate. It was dangerous, because each man has own sinns.
(no subject)
Date: 6/10/13 17:47 (UTC)