ext_97971 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
enders-shadow.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2013-10-05 05:56 pm
enders-shadow.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2013-10-05 05:56 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Absurd 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
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
how does it: "your idea kneecaps challengers and should be discarded based
on that alone." How?
no subject
no subject
How much did Jesse Ventura's opponent spend I wonder....
no subject
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
Good day, sir.
no subject
no subject
/disappoint
no subject