Thursday, July 06, 2006

More Campaign Finance Reform

The Times- Standard gave a short mention this morning to the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, designated Prop 89 on the November ballot.

I haven't really looked too closely at this one yet but I'm sure I'll vote NO on it. I've said before I'm very skeptical of most so- called campaign finance reforms.

Our very own Chris Crawford is quoted saying he doesn't think financing campaigns is a proper function of government. I might agree with him there.

He also thinks government funding of campaigns will encourage more whackos to run for office. I'm not so sure of that as government funding of campaigns will more likely reduce the number of candidates allowed to run for office, as I see it. It would probably take much more effort to jump through the hoops to qualify for government funding than it takes now if you just raise your own money.

Local elections expert, Kaitlin Sopoci- Belknap, thinks publicly funded elections are a "great idea and a great systemic fix for our elections...".

I'll never understand how anyone, much less someone on the far left who thinks government and corporations are so intertwined, could think that putting government in charge of deciding who the candidates are and who gets the funding is going to reform our elections.


At 1:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you have a better idea?

At 5:21 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Well, the government already decides who can run anyway. The criteria is set for ballot status. The idea behind public funding is that any candidate who meets that criteria would be entitled to public funding, but in order to receive that funding they have to forego other fundraising.

It might seem expensive, but I think the dividends would pay off in the long run if there was parity on campaign financing.

I would also add a provision that you can only obtain ballot status if you are willing to participate in at least three debates run by an agency such as the League of Women Voters or Common Cause. Basically, there should be a list of such organizations deemed fair enough to be appointed. Let's say you have 5 candidates. 6 organizations would be listed and each candidate could exclude one. If more than one is left, the name comes out of a hat. The candidates themselves should have no say in the content or format of the debates.

And since the airwaves are owned by the public (they are leased privately, for public benefit), free time should be allocated to each candidate. You use that time up, you have to use your money to buy your own or you do without.

At 8:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeez - welcome to socialism. This happens to be a free country and I think that the government should butt out completely!

At 2:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

elections expert kaitlin, now theres a laugh. kind of like media expert michael smith.

At 4:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"elections expert kaitlin, now theres a laugh. kind of like media expert michael smith."

or Green Party expert Charles Douglas - ha ha!

At 5:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow, michael smith really does think charles douglas controls everything, please tell us all about it. is he the one who keeps those tempratures in the gulf of mexico so high?

At 12:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


have you considered an on going off topic forum- just a suggestion.

At 2:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually that comment up above refering to sapaki-belnap and m.smith was made by David Giarrizzo. I saw him type it up on the computer at has beans.


Post a Comment

<< Home