But I'm sure that would have just as many bad unintended consequences as letting them take money from lobbyists and contributors from all over the country.
Such as?
I've never really understood why foreign donations to presidential campaigns are banned. I mean, I can see potential problems with it, but none are bigger than the very real existing problems with domestic donations. As far as I can tell, it's just a question of demagoguing and constitutional convenience - foreign donors don't have first amendment rights. So basically I think out of district donations should be allowed, but they should be banned to be consistent with presidential elections.
I'm making this up as I go along, but a possible bad effect is that it would allow seats from poor districtsto be bought cheaply. There have to be a lot of districts with almost no one in the district with money to give to campaigns. A rich, and not even necessarily very rich, self-funded candidate, could pick up one of those for a song.
Still, the system as it stands makes you wonder whose interests really matter.
No surprises there: the interests of those who have power, as usual.
I don't see what the problem with donations from outside your district is, other than it provides an underfunded opponent with a possible ad. I mean, if I want to send $100 to some House candidate in Florida, how is that different from donating to the DNC and letting them decide which candidate gets the money?
The way I figure it, banning out-of-district donations is going to limit seats to one of two types of people: extremely charismatic organizers (rare) and wealthy vanity candidates (extremely common amongst this year's Republican challengers, IIRC from electoral-vote.com's discussion of the Republican party's unwillingness to fund House raises). Wealthy vanity candidates are not the people we want running for Congress. I imagine most of them are by-your-own-bootstraps Republicans who relish the thought of picking their teeth with the bones of regulators.
In a certain light, 3 & 6 may amount to arguments for hard limits on campaign spending.
Yeah, this strikes me as a bad idea for the reasons noted (huge advantage to wealthy self-funders, particularly in poor districts) and also because it cuts down on my ability to participate in the democratic process if I live in a safe district. Why shouldn't the right-wing guy living in San Francisco or the liberal gal living in exurban Tulsa be able to contribute to the Bachmann/Tinkleburg race if he or she feels strongly about one of the candidates? Especially given that my understanding of current S.C. First Amendment law is that campaign donations are protected speech (which, whatever).
I do, however, think that there should be much more immediate transparency about campaign donations. If someone wants to make an issue of how much out-of-state aid Jared Polis (from the gays!) or Lou Barletta (from the anti-immigrant nuts!) is getting, more power to them.
I do, however, think that there should be much more immediate transparency about campaign donations.
Which sort of ties into #2: Given complete transparency, what's wrong with foreign donations? How functionally is this different than the catholic and mormon churches donating funds to prop 8 in california?
Why can organizations make campaign contributions at all?
I remember hearing at some point - so help me with the details - about a landmark case that determined that corporations can be sued, and prior to that only individuals were sue-able. The story went that this contributed to the landslide of corporate corruption, because it made it much harder to tie any individual to the corruption.
It seems here that a) there should be a cap on individual donations (like there is) and b) only individuals ought to be able to donate, and c) I'm okay with limiting it to just US citizens.
(I have that sinking feeling I get from time to time that this comment is going to reveal how uninformed I am.)
Dammit soup, you nailed it in 4. I'm gonna have to get up real early to pwn you.
Apparently I'm a simple guy so I see this simply but to me the problem is how to design a political system where the power is shared equally among all the citizens.
I assert that in human systems of interactions power migrates to those in power. Even if all people somehow start out with exactly equal levels of power somebody, even if by chance, will get a tiny lead and that will build and build and build. If that person is incompetent he/she may fall but eventually someone with ability will get a tiny lead and never give up the accumulated power.
It is kinda like having a supersaturated solution of sugar in water. Eventually somewhere a crystal will start to form and soon almost all the sugar is precipitated onto that crystal.
First we need to get people to understand why this is bad. Second, we need to get back to some of the systems that "spread the wealth around." Sorry for swearing.
The data doesn't seem to differentiate between "outside the district" meaning "just over the county line" and "four states away." There are plenty of reasons someone might donate to a congressperson whose district they don't live in:
1. They used to live in the district, but got re-districted (this has happened multiple times to me).
2. They used to live in the district, but moved nearby and still support the candidate. (Overwhelmingly true for me at a state level -- a longtime legislator once memorably described our legislature as one that he wouldn't trust to vote against slavery if it were a secret ballot. At present I am sending donations to two state legislators in whose districts I *used* to live, precisely because they don't fit that mold.)
3. They live in a district that is "safe" for the other party and want to support their own party.
4. They live far away and are donating because of an issue, party affiliation, or personal/business tie that has encouraged them to do so.
I like the Heebie plan, with the additional restriction that no more than 40% of funds come from out of district, and self-funding be limited to no more than ~20% of donations. That helps keep representation local and limits the advantages of vanity candidates. Still doesn't do anything about 527s, but that's a different discussion.
11 - it's not just that power aggregates to those who already have it, it's also that power goes to those who most aggressively seek it. Those folks also have a strong tendency to be assholes.
The Heebie plan eliminates unions, a step I'm not eager to see. It eliminates a lot of bad actors, too, but corporations are already limited from giving to political candidates or parties (not to issues).
Incremental liberalism all around us! Why not full public financing already?
16: Because no one wants it. The last CA ballot for full public financing lost 75-25. They were, of course, vastly out-fundraised, but you can only buy numbers like that if you've already got shallow support.
16,17: The Supremes equation of money and speech is a big limiting factor here, too.
Based on Apo's 5, I'd say that if you banned, or even limited out of district contributions, you would also have to ban or limit party funding, which would pretty much destroy the current two party system. The two party system is pretty bad, but you can't just throw things out unless you have a plan to replace them. Also, its never going to happen.
Because no one wants it.
Not exactly no one. Portland and Albuquerque have been using public financing for municipal races the last couple of years, and a half-dozen states have adopted it as well.
17/18/19: Some ideas are too good to be popular.
Those folks also have a strong tendency to be assholes.
True, but when the aholes from the other high school come over to start trouble I was glad we had our local aholes to fight back. They all got in trouble and the rest of us got a pass. On the veld. In suburbia.
18...destroy the current two party system.
The two party system is why the nominally pro choice party is lead in the House by a pro-lifer, and the economic and health care interests of rural working class people are forced into conflict with their desire to own guns. The two party system is the key to the rise of movement conservatism.
Unfortunately I don't think any amount of campaign finance reform can kill the two party system. For that we need reform of the electoral system, like going to instant runoff voting. Which is also a good idea that will never happen.
22: yet another instantiation of the local-maxima problem in optimization.
21: Can you imagine a democracy with no party financing, no out of district financing, no self financing, and strict residency requirements? Elyria OH would be represented by an ordinary person from Elyria, with the common ideas, attitudes, and interests of someone from these parts. Its really hard to picture democracy working like that, you know, with the people ruling. I don't think any nation on Earth has tried it.
In some literal sense: It's really hard to picture democracy working like that, you know, with the people ruling. I don't think any nation on Earth has tried it.
||
This seems as good a place as any to note that I learned last night that a dear former colleague of mine was introduced to her husband by Austan Goolsbee.
|>
I think that one effect of the gerrymandering in favor of the small states in the Senate has been to produce a lot of cheaply-bought seats. Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Alaska all put together have fewer voters than New Jersey, and maybe you can throw in Idaho.
Obviously the gerrymandering favors the specific issues of those states (water policy, agriculture, various resource and environmental issues) and also their generally conservative social attitudes. But besides that, these are good places for big money to buy cheap influence. Not only are campaigns cheaper there, but the amount of graft and pork required to make a difference in Wyoming, compared to NJ, is tiny.
Alaska and Wyoming's oil production is insignificant in the big picture, but makes them plausible as oil industry strongholds. I wouldn't be surprised if the big oil companies favor the oil fields in those two states just to keep their voters happy.
Bah, 25 is needlessly pessimistic. Dude! Makes some voter-education calls to new citizens who are just thrilled to be voting for the first time! I promise you, you will walk home with a spring in your step and a smile on your face. It's a great country. It's a participatory representative democratic constitutional republic!
(Yeah, yeah. Nobody link that depressing piece from the NYT on Florida voters scared of not having their early votes counted.)
27 is a nonstandard use of the word "gerrymander." Don't be insulting the Founders, now, Emerson. The Great Compromise was a good thing.
Tangentially, early returns in PA are bizarre.
I'm pretty sure that's not real info, JMQ. It says "Test from 10/20/08 to 10/31/08."
We don't have early voting in PA. The deadline to submit absentee ballots is Oct. 31, so there shouldn't be any results to report on yet, unless some counties are deciding to report absentee ballots as they come in. I guess that's possible.
28: see "in some literal sense"
Further to 30: Yeah, that's definitely dummy data. Note that almost every single candidate has 1 or zero votes reported, in each county.
31: Are you using "literally" in Joe Biden's sense?
29: Bob Barr? WTF?
Personally, I resent all of the out-of-state funding for Prop 8 - especially as it appears to come solely from religious groups. Separation of C&S, please...
Screw the Founders, Witt. Though John Randolph of Roanoke was pretty good, except for his politics.
34: I think that funding for propositions like this could usefully be separated from elections per. se. After all it's California law that's being affected, not anyone elses. On the other hand, you can probably argue that what happens in law there may be important to someone in Utah in a roughly parallel way that the the election of Federal politicians from California affects them.
Keeping religious organizations out of it completely is a really good idea. I'd prefer stripping religious based tax-exempt status etc. and let them bang it out as non-profits (or corps., for that matter) on equal footing with the others, whatever that is at the time.
30: I gathered that it was some sort of test, but in the absence of any details it seemed strange. Anyway, here's an OT question, which led me to the PA SoS site in the first place: what rules govern election results reporting? AFAIK, a state's SoS reports results as they're tallied, and news organizations choose when to report, refraining from calling national results (by mutual agreement) until West Coast polls have closed. Apart from the fact that certification comes later, that's pretty much it, right?
I have absolutely no helpful answer to 37, except to note that in general in Pennsylvania, if a process can be hyper-localized and parochial, it is.
So I'm fully prepared to believe that our 2,567 municipalities mean 2,567 processes for reporting election results.
Someone tell me how wrong I am, please.
In NC it's standardized and reports cannot begin (by law) until after the polls close state-wide. In fact, no one is supposed to yet know the totals from early voting because those aren't supposed to be tallied by county Boards of Elections until the polls close on election day. PA, though, is obviously not NC.
Fun overheard comment by random redneck at lunch: "Everyone knows Obama's grandmother is fine and he went to Hawaii to meet Osama." I looked right at him and laughed.
24:Elyria OH would be represented by an ordinary person from Elyria, with the common ideas, attitudes, and interests of someone from these parts.
Indeed. -ish. Elyria would presumably be represented by someone chosen from the subset of Elyrians who were most interested in political subjects, but basically they'd be representing their constituents because they shared the same worldview. That seems to me an entirely good thing. I don't share those views (for the most part), but if I want representation by someone who shares my worldview and that of my neighbors in Macacastan Northern VA, I pretty much have to concede the same right to the good people of Elyria, yes?
On public financing:
At a time when roughly half the states are seriously considering public financing of campaigns, Connecticut's initial experience has exceeded the expectations of even its most enthusiastic supporters. Of the 343 candidates running in General Assembly elections, 258 -- about 75 percent -- are seeking public financing.
Also, California incrementalism.
JMcQ, here's an article on PA voting procedures ca. 2000-01. Who knows how much it's changed since then. (I haven't read the article.)
Keeping religious organizations out of it completely is a really good idea.
It bears noting that this would also preclude religious efforts to influence public opinion on referenda on international debt relief, environmental issues, legalized gambling, human trafficking in general and sex worker trafficking specifically, etc.
Explicitly religious public debate has been part of every big political change in this country for 230+ years. I don't think forbidding them to participate is a good idea, regardless of particular concern about a group's goals or agenda.
I'd prefer stripping religious based tax-exempt status etc. and let them bang it out as non-profits (or corps., for that matter) on equal footing with the others, whatever that is at the time.
Not sure how this is different from current status. As I understand it, religious orgs are generally 501(c)(3) nonprofits, subject to the same restrictions on lobbying as other nonprofits. The thing is that many of them set up sister organizations that are not.
35, 42: Trolls stay on the troll blog.
Fresh back from pollwatcher training, I can report that Pennsylvania doesn't have early voting, and the envelopes containing absentee ballots are sealed until after polls close. That web site is either a test or a joke.
There's some question as to whether religious organizations are simply violating the existing rules in some cases - it could be more of an enforcement problem.
Also, I think technically it's "Framers" when you're talking about the Constitution.
Pennsylvania really should take that down if it's too misleading (and it seems like it is). But what do you expect out of a state that was late to accept bicameralism?
Elyria would presumably be represented by someone chosen from the subset of Elyrians who were most interested in political subjects, but basically they'd be representing their constituents because they shared the same worldview.
I think this would be a good thing, indeed. (Indeed to your indeed!) I was merely asserting that they only time something like this happens, it is followed shortly by the credit "Director......Frank Capra". But like Witt, and unlike 25, I believe in democracy.
The average Elyrian from the subset you describe would be an ok representative. He'd be a union guy, for instance.
But like Witt, and unlike 25, I believe in democracy.
That isn't actually what 25 said, at all. I was noting that 24 heads in a direction with a gazillion speculative paths; but every extant system has it's warts and foibles, and they all have failed in some literal sense to be democratic. I can't imaging that changing. There's lots of room to argue in the possible or plausible though --- compare the relative merits of parliamentary democracies and the US system, or look for improvement in any of them. They are all, after all, stuck in their respective ruts.
it is followed shortly by the credit "Director......Frank Capra"
The Taylor machine was a local institution. Lots of machines would qualify as local, I bet.
Looking at the study, it appears that Democrats get a higher percentage of out-of-district contributions.
CA, specifically Hollywood is a huge fundraising machine for the Dems. Waxman doesn't get it all, and is so safe what he does keep he lends to others, thus putting them in his debt.
Money is speech, ok. But I don't see why TV stations should get rich because of the ad buys. The airwaves are public. I'd start there.
At the end of the day, trolls go home to their Trollblog after a happy day of trolling.
It bears noting that this would also preclude religious efforts to influence public opinion on referenda on international debt relief, environmental issues, legalized gambling, human trafficking in general and sex worker trafficking specifically, etc.
Indeed. It's a sticky point, but I think we'd be better off overall without direct involvement of religious groups or corporations. And the current system of lobbying access is bullshit too (fixing that is probably a precondition on making the former more sane). I agree it's a hard line to draw though. Failing keeping direct action out, they shouldn't have any special status, and there should be complete and absolute transparency of financials.
I don't think forbidding them to participate is a good idea
I don't think you can or want to forbid them to participate, but there is a lot of room for framing the form of participation, which also has a lot of effect on who can participate in practice. This latter bit is badly out of whack at the moment, I think (as evidenced by the prop 8 stuff in california seemingly largely coming down to the mormon and catholic churches slugging it out against a few corporations -- insane)
The airwaves are public.
This is complicated by the existence, and total dominance, of cable, which isn't inherently public, although it is regulated. In theory I'm all for it, but it's legally a little more complicated these days than saying that the airwaves are public.
56, though surely soon to be deleted, would make great mouseover text.
I don't see cable as inherently less public than the airwaves, really. Neither of them really work at all without regulation and government granted monopoly of some sort. Also, once you're talking satellite you're back to airwaves.
"inherently less public" s/b "inherently all that much less public"
there is a difference, but in practice I don't think a huge one.
though surely soon to be deleted, would make great mouseover text.
I don't see how unfogged is like a passage to let spectators out of an arena, myself.
60: I think you can get to the same results, but it takes a little more legal work. And I'm gesturing at, rather than analyzing, the problem; I don't know much about telecom.
62: Fair enough, it's bound to be a bit dicey.
Money is the mother's milk of politics
56, though surely soon to be deleted, would make great mouseover text.
Though it revealed that ToS doesn't know what a vomitorium is.
CA, specifically Hollywood is a huge fundraising machine for the Dems. Waxman doesn't get it all, and is so safe what he does keep he lends to others, thus putting them in his debt.
Hollywood more so than Silicon Valley?
(not that I know why Silicon Valley would be a fundraising machine for the Dems...my impression is that it is mostly male libertarians, though have never been there so don't know anyway)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/29/11501/135
There's a good chance progressives and feminists will really screw themselves by mostly ignoring and losing this winnable referendum.