Congress is up to it again and it just gets worse and worse. This time they are, in a subtle way, outlawing parties other than the Republicrats. The quickest way for me to get this information out is to just give you the entire post from Jim Babka:
Please forward this to anyone you know who cares about competitive elections.
Campaign Update: DC Downsizers have sent 4,278 messages to Congress opposing this incumbent protection bill. More are needed. The link to click to send your message is provided below:
Dear friend,
If GM set the rules for Ford, Ford would soon be bankrupt. Sadly, Congressional incumbents can do to their competitors what GM cannot. If H.R. 4694 passes into law…
- You won’t be able to use your own money to support or oppose federal candidates
- Taxes will fund all federal campaigns, with winners getting more money in the next election, and losers less
- Third parties and independents will have to collect petition signatures equal to 20% of the votes cast in the last election to get full funding, but paid petitioners will be outlawed!
- It’s well-established that challengers must outspend incumbents to unseat them. This law would make it impossible for any challenger to outspend any incumbent
- Your tax money will be used to fund candidates you oppose
- Candidates unwilling to take government funds will be prohibited from spending any money at all
- It will be illegal for citizens groups to spend money discussing federal campaigns.
This bill would be the absolute end of free elections in America.
To send Congress a message opposing H.R. 4694
click here.Jim Babka
This set of laws basically outlaws the Libertarian Party. We have for years joked it was easier to get on the ballot in Nicaragua under the Socialists than it was in the USA. Now it will be impossible. We have long used paid canvassers in States with the most onerous anti-democracy laws. On top of which, they set the bar for signatures impossibly high. We rely on individual donations because we are an individualist party. They wish to make that illegal. They will make the only allowable source of funding that which is sucked from the Statist teat. On moral grounds the Party refuses to take government funds for campaigns.
This should be a call to arms for any who love liberty. I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but everything I have heard indicates this law is the death knell for diversity of opinion in America. Although some measures seem tailored to kill the LP, they may also take out the Green Party and others as well.
The incumbents want a closed system. While they would probably prefer a one party state like the commies had, they are willing to settle for a two party party where they can get on with their graft and theft undisturbed.
Is there a difference between Republicans and Democrats in the long haul? In a world where they do not even have to worry about someone popping up and taking votes from them? I think not.
Closed systems are nice for those inside them for a time… but they ultimately lead to disaster and bloodshed.
Doesn’t this sound similar to the solutions being proposed by the three main social democratic parties in the UK vis a vis party funding.
get us to pay for them, but not for any parties they disagree with. Can you imagine UKIP, the BNP, or a proper conservative party being passed alms to stand against the cultural elites position?
Exactly – and what’s more they are using the blatant criminal fraud that is the cash for peerages scandal to push this particular barrow. It’s disgusting…… “we’ve been caught red handed in corrupt funding so as a solution we propose to formalise the funding of our party(ies) through theft from the taxpayer. This will have the added benefit of excluding any opposition outside our little cabal”.
Sorted.
Oh, get over it. This bill will not pass. It’s sponsored by 7 Democrats in a Republican-controlled house, and it’s massively unconstitutional.
This bill, which has “only” seven co-sponsors (that’s really not a lot) has been banished to three separate committees, to be retrieved at the Speaker’s discretion (i.e., never). It has no counterpart in the Senate.
What’s more important is to name-and-shame the co-sponsors:
Rep Obey, David R. [WI-7] (main sponsor)
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] – 2/1/2006
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 2/1/2006
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] – 2/1/2006
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] – 2/1/2006
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] – 2/1/2006
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] – 2/1/2006
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] – 2/1/2006
These are some of the most ultra-liberal members of the House. This bill will go nowhere fast.
I object to voting on moral grounds, so take that caveat. However, as I’ve said many times before, we’re not talking about the brightest people in the world. They’re merely among the most audacious. This thing should be taken as a fairly important indicator of their aspirations and the general drift of things.
The sponsors of this bill are Democrats all of whom do not believe in freedom of speech. The Republicans are in control so this bill is dead.
It might be dead in the States, here in Blighty though it’s coming.
Every so often these Commies put together atrocities like this, which die in committee and are never heard from again. Ted Kennedy alone has sponsored something like eight hundred bills of similar nature, none of which have ever even come up for a vote.
It’s basically political posturing for the constituents back home.
Occasionally, of course, one slips through — the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act comes to mind — but in this particular case, it’s deader than Stalin.
Thank you for the confident statements of its impending demise. I have been sitting on this story for some weeks expecting that to come to pass… but the thing just hasn’t gone away yet.
Are you really sure congressional Republicans will not see the advantages of limited competition?
Yes, Dale. I’m pretty sure, if only because they’re not as stupid as Waxman and Frank and know that that law’s as likely to be poison for them as for the other guy (especially the “winners get more, losers get less” thing).
(PS. Since nobody’s seemed to link to it, here’s a link to the actual text of the bill.)
Two other things: The bill appears to only apply to elections for the House; not all elections, not even all Federal elections.
And re. the Constiututionality issue, it appears to have a clause such that, if I’m reading it correctly, if any part is found unconstitutional, part of hte bill converts into a proposed Consitutional amendment (which would of course then need to be approved in the normal way, which means it would never happen in a billion God-damn years).
On the other hand, that section is also poorly written even for a bill, and relates to other parts of the USC I’m too lazy to look up, so …
Thank you for the confident statements of its impending demise. I have been sitting on this story for some weeks expecting that to come to pass… but the thing just hasn’t gone away yet.
It’ll die of old age. Don’t worry about it- things like this are usually just fodder for fundraising letters. They let an incumbent pander to a particular group’s hot-button issues (Representative X introduced/co-sponsored a bill that would [insert constituency’s pet issue here]….) without having to actually worry about what would happen if it came to pass.
Real bills have co-sponsors from the majority party. That alone should be a tip-off that it’s not going to get anywhere.
The GOP, in the face of many years of seemingly suicidal Democratic stupidity, is ascendant. The Democrats are in decline. This bill seems like a transparent attempt to hold on to the little Democratic islands in the swelling river of republicanism that is washing over the country.
Whether or not the rise of republicanism is a good thing for libertarians is another issue, but certainly this obscenity of a bill is not good for anyone except moldy old congressmen in fear of having to go out and get real job.
“We have for years joked it was easier to get on the ballot in Nicaragua under the Socialists than it was in the USA. ”
Comments like that are what make it impossible for me to take libertarians seriously on any issue. If you want to be taken seriously when promoting liberty, stop dishonestly offering up stalinist states as examples of the lesser evil.
Goe, knows too many who believe it to be true.
Goemagog:
Do you have any *idea* what sort of hoops the party has had to jump through in some States? I used to follow the battles to get on the ballot quite closely. It was appalling and very expensive. It has required suits in court on occassion.
As to Nicaragua… they did have an election, opposition candidates did get on the ballot, Ortega did lose, and he gracefully bowed out of office. Sounds like democracy to me.
I suggest you talk to people who have actually done battle with the two party hegemony before you so blithly dismiss my only semi-facetious comment.
Wot no Verity! On the subject of a great nation on the verge of collapse?
Now now Nick, I’m sure the sun has yet to set, wherever the good lady lives.
I’m with Kim on this one.
For us Brits read, Private Members Bill.
Not a snowballs chance in hell of becoming law.
RAB,
But Verity is beyond time and space. I’m tracking her in hope of the Nobel. If I can just prove Einstein was wrong…
Dale,
I agree that the bill is dead…. at least for now.
The problem is that McCain-Feingold warped our political campign funding the the extent that certifiable kooks like George Soros and others have hi-jacked the Democrat party. The danger here is that if Bush pulls too many more Harriet Myers and Dubai Ports deals out of his hat, his base could stay home…… and then the inmates will be running the asylum.
Actually, yes, I do. I’m also fully aware that the Libertarian Party was on the ballot in all 50 states before the Sandinistas caved into pressure to permit an election. For all the complaints about how hard it is for third-party candidates to get on a ballot, I’ve yet to see a ballot for a presidential election with fewer than 10 candidates, even after many joined the Reform Party in an attempt to get a higher profile.
Goe, can’t take socialists seriously no matter freedom they promise.
how much freedom even.
Goe, meh
Goemagog-
Don’t you hate it when your mind runs faster than the fingers?
As to Dale’s question on whether there would be a difference between Republicans and Democrats if the bill were to pass, we know the answer already. It’s name is Jim Jeffords, along with Chuck Hagel and a few other ignoble characters.
Unlike the US, we in the UK are facing this prospect.
The loans-for-peerages scandal has two advantages for NewLabour.
1) It gets state funding sorted, locking out new arrivals
2) It means they can get support for “Lords Reform” they would otherwise had to struggle with.
It reminds me of the burning of the Reichstag…
I agree TimC, we will see a big push to make this come to pass here in the UK within a very short timescale.
When you say Lords Reform don’t you really mean Lords stacking and gerrymandering? Mind you with the new abolition of parliament bill there will be no need for a stacked House of Lords.
David,
I am not really sure where I am on Lords Reform.
We need to find another way to have a ‘peer’ review of legislation that is NOT done by lawyers and barristers but by people who have in some way proven their ability to make sound judgements in the real world. Self-made entrepreneurs of the Branson variety tend to be such people (as opposed to promoted-to-CEO types) but we seem to be relying more and more on those from the legal profession, hence a rapid slide into laws that are narrow, complex and well suited to providing endless employment for their fellow “union members”!
“It is unconstitutional so it is dead”.
Errr most of the things the government does are unconstitutional – and since the defeat of the Four Horsemen back in the 1930’s the courts usually uphold them.
“The Republicans are in control so it is dead”.
Even making the, rather wild, assumption that the Republicans can be trusted who is going to be in control from January 2007?
“There is no way the Democrats will win in November”
Oh yes? With the pathetic record of Republicans? The massive media and education system bias in favour of the Democrats? And the nice new candidates the Democrats are selecting in certain Republican districts (such as the nice lady who had her legs blown off in Iraq)?
“They can not win we do not need to worry” may soon become “How the **** did they win?”
“Do not worry President Bush will veto it”.
Well he has not exactly been Captain Veto so far. And remember how weak he is now – lose both houses of Congress and he would be President-in-name-only.
Which he more or less is already.
Still one good side to a Bill like this – if it passes and is upheld in the Courts it will show “democracy” to be a sick farce.
There’s plenty of collaboration at state level between Dem and Rep lawyers to keep third parties such as Ralph Nader’s off the ballot. Then there are laws designed to confuse the voter and wreck nationwide third-party campaigns which require the interloper to fight under different labels in different states.
Basically since the early 1970s there has been a single Warfare/Welfare Party governing this country, committed to an ever-expanding, centralised public sector and to incessant military campaigning overseas. Result: Washington’s bust, and America spends nearly as much on ‘defense’ as the rest of the world put together to the benefit of Big Oil and four gigantic arms-makers who are de facto nationalised industries.
A lot of GOP supporters from the Reagan-Gingrich years (the last time there was a serious internal revolt against creeping statism) now realise how they’ve been fooled by the Bush dynasty. It was *always* a nexus of government/business corruption from the getgo back in the 1930s. The vast cost of campaigning (Hillary Clinton needs more than $10 million just to retain a fairly safe Senate seat) deters breakaways from the phoney two-party setup, however.
There is one, count ’em, one libertarian left on the Republican side of Congress, Dr Ron Paul, and a few semi-libertarians. There is one socialist independent in the House, Bernie Sanders. This does not correspond in any way to the spectrum of opinion among the half of the American people which has any political savvy or desire to vote. Instead, incumbents have so stitched up the house that 90pc are there for life if they don’t lose the sponsorship of their parties, and the way America is segregating itself socially, most senators will soon be nearly as safe.
Democracy has been supplanted by an oligarchy of the rich– who usually got that way by pulling government strings– and their creatures. It is just not possible for a guy from a log cabin with ideas to make his way to the White House with his idealism intact and unbought.
“Democracy has been supplanted by an oligarchy of the rich– who usually got that way by pulling government strings– and their creatures. It is just not possible for a guy from a log cabin with ideas to make his way to the White House with his idealism intact and unbought.”
This is the very reason I am for campaign finance. Too many of our legislators have to spend too much time just trying to raise money. To be honest I haven’t given much thought to how this effects 3rd parties. But it seems to me (and I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong) that if campaign finance were set up right, it would be open to all candidates regardless of party affiliation. Because let’s face it the way it is right now is a mess.
But I agree that since this a democratic bill and has been sent to committee it will surely die there.
This is my first time at this site and I was actually looking for some information on British law about wiretapping. If anyone can lead me in that direction I would really appreciate it. TIA
The failure of a person to be nominated by any of the existing national parties does not a conspiracy make, nor does his inability to draw enough support within the party that does half-heartedly nominate him.
things not turning out the way that you want them to is not proof of oppression.
Goe, not in the time of chimpanzees.
Hello, David from Australia here.
I am also not against public funding of political parties as such. We have this here in Australia – any one candidate who can crack 4% of the vote in an election for our Federal House of Representatives gets about $A 1 per vote.
Even if the law you are talking about does not pass, there are some gaping flaws in US elections. At the time of the disputed 2000 Presidential election, I did some looking around on the sites of various state Secretaries of State, and the way that the regulations are open to being abused by either major US party is astounding.
For instance
1) Politicians being the formal head of the business of running elections. The idea that a politician was able to make the call to stop vote counting in Florida was a joke. It would still have been a joke if the election had gone to Gore.
In Australia this is the job of and independent Electoral Commissioner. These Commissioners are generally public servants and I can think of no case where controversy was caused by a political hack being appointed to one of these offices
2) State legislatures having the final say in the drawing up of electoral boundaries.
After the ALP (Australian Labor Party) suffered for decades under unfair electoral boundaries, when they took power in the 70s and 80s they drew up new laws about this issue. Now no Parliament in Australia, State or Federal, has any power to alter the boundaries drawn up by an independent body.
No politician can be trusted to draw fair electoral boundaries.
3) The polling station officials in the USA are ususally members of the major political parties.
What?????? I mean WHAT???
In Australia voting and vote counting is performed by mostly causal employees who are NOT members of political parties at all. They are expected to be absolutely neutral.
4) There is no Federal standard for ballots.
Australia does not have a consolidated election day, so it is easier for the Federal Parliament to lay down laws as to what the ballot paper should look like across the country.
But still, in the USA there should surely be some Federal standard to get rid of confusing and potentially misleading ballot papers. At the very least, someone could try to declare substandard ballots a breach of ‘equal protection’ judgements?
I understand there are issues of the independence of lower levels of government here, and also the each county or city is conducting local elections at the same time as Presidential electors are being chosen, so ballot papers need to be printed at a very local level. But still…the chance for ballots that grossly disadvantage the uneducated or poor readers is so high under the current system.
I realise that these are a little arcane, but is there room in the USA for an alliance of everyone from left and right with a committment to electoral reform?
Good questions.
Why are we against the State funding campaign’s? Simple our party is based on principles of non-coercion and voluntary association. Taxation is not voluntary. Taxation is money relieved from honest citizens under threat of people busting down your door, throwing you to the ground and waving M16’s around. Taxation is stealing. Federal campaign funding is the transfer of stolen goods from our perspective.
As an individual you can feel however you wish, but if the LP is to be a principled example to us, it must not accept any funding from the State we abhor. We never have.
The idea of enforced socialist election funding appalls me to a level a non-libertarian may have trouble divining. It is the State grabbing us by the nape of the neck and forcing us, kicking and screaming to the feeding trough where all the good little happy I’m a Delta people are drugged on State money.
It is beyond unacceptable.
On to some other points. Why are election laws different in different States? Because they *are* different States. There is the phantasy we have been fed that the Feds *are* the country. Read history. Read law. The States existed before the USA. They joined together to form ‘these United (Individual) States’. Each is a nation in its own right with its own government and laws. It was much more so in the past, but there has been evil mutation at work over the decades, the biggests and worst of which goes back to ‘Honest’ Abe. Senators used to be the Representatives of the State Governments to the central government and were elected by the State Legislatures so that they were beholden to the interests of that Government. Congressmen were directly elected because they were the representives of the people. This was a balance meant to keep down the usurpation of powers by the Feds.
Another forgotten bit of history is that Secession from the Union is entirely legal. Read any pre-1862 documents and you will find this was the case. New York City even discussed seceding both from New York State and the Union at one point!
As Libertarians we want to push power back down the hierachy. It has been leaking upwards for far too long, and not just in America. Take power away from the center, move it downwards step by step… and eventually put it entirely back into the hands of the Soveriegn Individual as Marshall Fritz called us.
Upon re-reading I notice I juxtaposed two ideas in a way which might cause incorrect inferences. Abe was not responsible for the change in State legislatures. He was responsble for trashing the constitution and becoming a dictator and wiping out the concept of Secession by fiat. But then he ruled by fiat. He jailed much of the Maryland legislature in to a hell hole along with 13,000 other Northern dissidents, where I mean dissident in the sense that Stalin meant dissident.
Dale, thanks for your comments. I disagree with you on the principle of election funding. I won’t bother to go into my reasons (unless you ask) because its pretty clear this is not the place to do that – we’ll just butt heads.
I do understand some of the reasons for local and state governments being jealous of their prerogatives in the USA. And perhaps the answer to the holes in the system is not an over-arching Federal law. Perhaps this battle is indeed better fought at a local and state level. Since I live in a country with different conditions, its not for me to say.
But I wonder if you think the things I talk about are important or not? I think it makes a difference for the better if votes are counted honestly and the poll is fair. Do you think that’s important, and if it is, do you think there is room for a cross-party alliance on this issue?
Or perhaps you think elections are not that important, and the real battle lies elsewhere anyway? Do you perhaps think the system is so rotten that reform is pointless?
I think you misunderstand the way pollwatching works. It would be almost impossible to have a ‘non-partisan’ organization. In practice it would simply be taken over at the local level by which ever was the majority party. Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?
The system used is to put members of *both* parties in the room to oversee things. This works fairly well in some senses, although I could complain that libertarians are not often included (if ever? anyone know?) The idea is that each has a vested interest in catching the other side cheating. If only one party or the other were there, it would be an invitation to fraud.
It would not be ‘almost impossible’ to have neutral polling place officials, it happens at every election in Australia.
While conditions are different, I can’t see any reason why the various jurisdictions in the USA could not adopt such a plan, even if they wanted to. Or am I missing something?
I’ve a good deal of exprience on Australian election days, handing out ‘how-to-vote’ cards outside the polling booth on behalf of political parties.
Of course, it is entirely possible that even with strict rules one party or the other could take control of the election day organisation.
In Australia, each candidate is able to have a ‘scrutineer’ to watch out for their interest and make sure nothing funny goes on, in the booth on the day itself and when the votes are being counted once polling finishes at 6pm
These scrutineers are the ones who ‘guard the guards’. So you have representatiives of the candidates (in effect, local parties) who can raise the alarm if they see anything wrong.
But it is more than possible to have neutral people handing out ballot papers, counting votes and so on.
While this does not happen in Australia, you could simply ban anyone who has stood for public office or joined a political party (as opposed to just registering under one label or the other) from working at a polling booth. They could sign an affadavit to that effect, and then if it turned out that they had lied they can be prosecuted.
Taking your point about Libertarians not being invited to work at polling stations, that is certainly the sort of issue that I think you could raise a stink about if you wanted to. You could either insist on being admitted, or push for a more far-reaching reform.
There are holes in the Australian system as well, but it makes an enormous amount of difference if votes are counted by a neutral umpire or by actual party members.
For instance, the Florida Republican party, in effect, made the initial decision to close down vote counting in Florida in 2000. That meant they were able to seize the initiative and and paint Democrats who wanted the votes to be counted as people who could not accept the ‘will of the people’
The major publicity advantage they were able to get was very helpfuil to them. I don’t think that any politicians should have that much power over the actual machinery of vote counting.
Cheers David
Lets do a thought experiment based on US politics. Let us imagine the George Bush could run for a third term. Where could you possibly find believably neutral parties? Alpha Centauri?
As I understand it, pretty much anyone can blow the whistle on proceedings as it stands. Even so, in places like Chicago the shenanigans under Mayor Bud Daley were Heroic. When one party utterly dominates an area, it becomes well nigh impossible to trust the system unless there are vested interests from the minority party… and even then it might not work. There used to be a joke amongst Democratic politicians, “When I die I bury me in Chicago so I can still vote!”
Incidentally, did you know Bud Daley’s son ran the campaigning and get out the vote for the Democrats in Florida in 2000? I found it interesting myself.
David Jackmanson, Thank you for your posts on how you folks handle elections. I am one of the people that would really like to see the elections publically financed. The way things are here, now, big corporations have way too much influence in our elections. It’s difficult for a politician to remain independent when his campaign was paid for by Exxon or Coke.
I used to be a poll worker and the work was always divided between the two parties. I guess the idea was that we would keep an eye on each other. But I always found my co-workers of either party to be people of high regard. As far as I can remember the Libertarians weren’t involved but this was 30 years ago and they just weren’t a factor in our area (Hawaii). But it certainly would have been easy to include them if they had been.
But thanks for the info on your country. I think we could take lessons from all parts of the world. And I would be interested in your thoughts about publicallly financed elections.
David Jackmanson, Thank you for your posts on how you folks handle elections. I am one of the people that would really like to see the elections publically financed. The way things are here, now, big corporations have way too much influence in our elections. It’s difficult for a politician to remain independent when his campaign was paid for by Exxon or Coke.
I used to be a poll worker and the work was always divided between the two parties. I guess the idea was that we would keep an eye on each other. But I always found my co-workers of either party to be people of high regard. As far as I can remember the Libertarians weren’t involved but this was 30 years ago and they just weren’t a factor in our area (Hawaii). But it certainly would have been easy to include them if they had been.
But thanks for the info on your country. I think we could take lessons from all parts of the world. And I would be interested in your thoughts about publicallly financed elections.
Kewalo: I presume then you are for outlawing the Libertarian Party? It will not take stolen money. The only option would be to find ways to disobey the laws, which would result in Libertarians going to prison for their principles. Is that what you want?
I’m sorry Dale, why would you think for a minute I would want to outlaw any party? If you chose to not take tax money and break the law that is your responsibility. We all have to make some concessions and don’t always get our own way in everything. When I ask myself what is better for the country, public finance makes the most sense.
My personal opinion is that all people should pay taxes to support their country and using some of that money and the air time that is supposed to belong to the people to elect our legislators is well worth it.
I would prefer to have elected officials that are loyal to the public not the corporations, which is what is happening now. The pharmaceutical companies spent over $800M lobbying the legislature and we ended up with a drug bill that hurts the ill and elderly. It’s a disgrace. This isn’t some philosophical subject here, it is real life.
David Jackmanson,
The possibility of enforcing neutrality of poll workers is nil. When you consider that incumbents so seldom lose a contest, it makes open seats worth the trouble of stacking the poll workers ranks with sleepers (People who keep their loyalties secret). Besides, as Kewalo points out, most poll workers are people of integrity. If there are enough of them, cheats will be caught.
What is necessary is to make a system where everything but the actually marking, etc of the ballot is observed by anyone who wants to watch. If I want to video record the process, provision should be made for that.
When I ran for office, it was disconcerting that the (already elected) officials overseeing the process actively and openly supported my opponent. While I believe that the voting and vote counting part of my (losing) election was clean, it does make the potential problems clear.
Even as I type, we have a local election coming up in a couple weeks here where one candidate’s signs have been stolen (over 1/3 of them) yet even so, some of the officials make no secret of backing the opponent who benefited. Because of these thefts, my own front yard is missing a sign for the candidate I support. Ordering additional signs cannot be done this close to an election. I know. I’ve tried. These thefts could change the outcome of this election. If so, I hope someone is caught and goes to jail.
I can’t for the life of me imagine why we would want to turn over money to a system run by incumbents in the naïve hope of having cleaner elections. The system is badly broken and does need repair. I don’t know what the solution is, but I do know that adding a new tax that politicians will use to fund their reelection is a recipe for worse, not better.
The only suggestion I have is that the SCOTUS should have, a long time ago, found unconstitutional any law that sets different standards for campaign and election depending on what party the candidate does or doesn’t belong to. Republicrats and Demicans should face exactly the same qualification process and have no easier access to the ballot or the polling place than Independent candidates.
It is beyond me how anyone could think putting the political system in charge of the money for elections will do anything other than make the system bigger and more corrupt.
Why do corporations spend money in DC? Because they have to. I have friends in commercial space. Little guys. But they have to maintain contacts in DC to protect themselves against the State. They will not quite put it that way, but it is what it boils down to. The underlying problem is this horrific beast we have created over the last century. Everyone does obeisance to it. Everyone pays taxes to it so it can spend more to run their lives; then they have to spend more of their money to try to keep some portion of theirs lives and business out of its gruesome claws.
We have come to the point in the US and UK where nearly everything revolves around the State rather than the individual. People firmly believe that a paternalistic (or maternalistic if that is your preference… makes no difference) goverhment must regulate everything and care for them.
Now we are talking about handing over to that foul monster the very keys to its own self propagation.
It just simply horrifies me beyond belief.
I hope we can get cheap spa ceships built soon, because I want off.
Midwesterner, Sorry you lost your election. I hope you don’t get discouraged.
I’m not sure I understand this sentence.
” I can’t for the life of me imagine why we would want to turn over money to a system run by incumbents in the naïve hope of having cleaner elections. ”
Maybe I am being naive but the way I see financing elections is to try and see that all candidates have a level playing field when it comes to money and airtime. Except for the advantage of being in office, the incumbent would have the same amount of money to spend as the challanger (no huge war chest already in place) and TV and radio would have to allot equal time to all candidates. In my mind all corporate money would be outlawed in elections. I realize that we would have to build in safeguards but I think it is doable. What we have now is only working against the average candidate and any third/fourth parties. Thoughts?
I hope to God that your area is not using the new voting machines.
And just a note on the light side, go buy some poster paint, get a cardboard box and make your own signs. Have kids? put them to work.
Why do corporations spend money in DC? Because they have to. I have friends in commercial space. Little guys. But they have to maintain contacts in DC to protect themselves against the State. They will not quite put it that way, but …
If your friends are little guys then the reason they have to put money into DC is to protect themselves from the big guys IMO. I can’t imagine anyone being happy that Exxon, et al and the pharmaceutical companies bribe the government with billions of dollars to get breaks that harm Americans. That horrifies me.
Let’s face it, you may be against big government, or at least that’s how I have taken your posts. But unless you advocate some type of revolution you are stuck with it. So IMO we need to make the best out of a bad situation and try at least to not let it be run by the corporations who’s only loyality is to profits. Governments first loyalty should be to the citizens.
Kewalo,
You probably already know this but lets review some anecdotal information. The 500 most valuable drugs in 2004 generated almost three hundred thousand million dollars of revenue. Three hundred billion in US speak.
Elementary, middle and secondary school teachers made an average of $44,367 The most frequent estimate I saw for number of teachers in the US is 6.5 million. That gross revenue also approaches three hundred thousand million dollars. (Those figures do not appear to include the non-teacher part of the education industry.)
These amounts of cash flow, and many many others besides, will defend themselves by using some of that cash to assure the $ faucet keeps flowing.
You appear to be worried only about corporate influence buying and forgetting about all of the people who owe their jobs to government and its regulations. Their money can never be regulated well because it is given individually as cash but also in the form of labor and legwork. I’m originally from Chicago. I’ve seen the best politicians money can buy. Please understand my cynicism. And I now live in Wisconsin, where we’ve just convicted a half dozen or so of our very highest ranking legislators of felonies. The politicians in prison are just cannon fodder. The money will find new politicians who will take the chance.
We can not stop money. The harder we try to suppress it, the more insidious its influence has been and will be. The farther below the surface it will sink. But it will still be there. There are too many jobs and too much profit to be made by those who would cheat.
Taking additional money from taxpayers will only raise the total $ pool. What little of taxpayer money doesn’t go to the candidates the big money is backing will only be outbid on a massive scale.
I do not believe that big money can be stopped from influencing elections. The best we can do for now is demand total disclosure of all kinds of support. Cash, print space, air time, etc. If who is purchasing a candidate is fully exposed, this will do more than all the foxes we can ever hire to guard the henhouse.
You say we are stuck with big government exercising its power. I say we are stuck with big corporate and labor money buying that power. Stopping one without stopping the other isn’t possible. We have to stop both. If we don’t, the system fails. It always has. Economists have lovely charts showing various government’s revenue as a share of GDP prior to system failure. I wish I could find one for you. We are getting close.
What it boils down to is, governments first loyalty will always be to itself. Nothing can change this. There is only one way to stop money from buying government, and that is to take away from government the power to redistribute people’s money and property. Once there is nothing to sell, no one will buy it.
Hi everbody, thanks for your comments. Sorry about the time I have taken to respond. Who would have thought that pouring liquid all over your keyboard would make it stop working? Certainly the computer company did not tell me, so I think I should sue them 🙂
First of all, there is no need to ‘outlaw’ the Libertarian Party. You could have a system where people are free to spend their own money and there is also public funding. I would not expect libertarians to support this either , which is fair enough. But my idea would certainly not stop them spending their own money. If you don’t want to take the public funding, no worries. Just don’t apply for it. This is different to Kewalo’s point of view, but I agree with Kewalo about the idea that election funding is meant to level the playing field and give independents and minor parties a boost up.
Midwesterner, your comments show me the vast difference between political culture in Australia and the USA. The electoral commissions here (which run the polling) are totally divorced from politicians. There is no chance of parties being able to stack the polling booth workers here, because it is not their decision as to who gets employed.
I should point out that the casual polling-booth workers in Australia are paid casual rates for the day – I do not know the exact amount but they would earn A$100 – $150 ($US 70 – $115 ish at todays exchange rate) for the day. I am sure you could attract a lot of people with no real interest in politics at that sort of money. And my idea is that you mkae them sign an affadavit so they can be investigated and charged if they turn out to be lying.
Having said that, I agree with you that the crucial thing is to have anyone at all being able to watch and challenge the process of voting (except, as you say, marking ballot papers must still be done in private). Having a rule like that would be a more important thing than stopping political party activists being poll-workers (although the thought will always send a shiver up my spine).
Given the little I know about ballot access in the USA, I agree that is it a joke. In Australia, if you are not a member of a registered party, you need fifty signatures from the electorate (district) you are standing in to stand for the Federal House of Representatives, and fifty signatures from the State you are standing in to stand for the Senate.
Given that Federal electorates have about 80 000 voters and the States have from 500 000 – 6 000 000 people, this is not too arduous. Certainly it is much easier than in the USA. To register a party only needs 500 people.
While there is still a double standard here, it is much less bad than in the USA.
Dale, no I was not aware that Young Master Daley was looking after the Dems in Florida in 2000. At least Jeb Bush had a foeman worthy of his steel! I wonder what his late dear old dad had told him about the 1960 Presidential election?
David Jackmanson, Thank you for your posts on how you folks handle elections. I am one of the people that would really like to see the elections publically financed. The way things are here, now, big corporations have way too much influence in our elections. It’s difficult for a politician to remain independent when his campaign was paid for by Exxon or Coke.