Dan Walters on Campaign Finance Reform
In today's Sacramento Bee, Dan Walters has one of the the most common sense commentaries on campaign finance reform I've read. Such discussions usually offer up ways to limit candidate and legislator access to money. Walters suggests government has so much power the money will always be there:
"The Capitol's fundamental business is extracting money from some and giving it to others – sometimes openly, through taxes, fees and the budget, and sometimes indirectly, through measures imposing mandates, carving out exemptions and so forth."
"A ballpark estimate is that decisions by the Legislature, the governor, other elected officials and their appointees has an annual impact in excess of a half-trillion dollars – via taxes, budgets, federal funds, insurance premiums, utility rates, horse racing franchises, casino gambling compacts, medical procedure rules and so forth."
Banning contributions won't affect what's at stake.
Regarding Dan Schnur's proposal to ban the raising campaign of contributions by legislators while they're in session, Walters suggests, among other things... that might make influence peddling less transparent.
It looks to me as if making things less transparent is Schnur's very purpose.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:15 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Throw out the old system. One boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 from each county should be selected by an annual lottery to participate in the legislature. Televise it. The sole victor goes on to serve in Congress.
Because less transparency and more money has worked so well for the rest of the government? pretty soon all the money we earn will go directly to the government and they'll just allow us to have what they think we should have.
"Henchman Of Justice" says,
Right back to "publicly funded elections at all levels".
With regard to concerns on "how many people would then run for office", consider this occurs now:
1) fill out forms again, again and again - don't, get fined & repremanded
2) Open a bank account "specific to the campaign"
3) Have a residence, be a citizen
4) Have a certain amount of money (this changes)
5) attain a certain number of signatures from people having a residence, being registered, etc...
6) Time and energy away from family, job, civic volunteerings, etc...
If a federal presidential election involved say, up to "x" number of candidates, how much is too many? Personally, up to 50 would be appropriate for the lower 49 and Alaska.
What would it be like IF each state had a process to elect its own candidate to run for office (reference state primary procedures now for state legislative positions), but that when the actual election occured, it does not matter if state's peoples voted for another state's candidate for president.
Two is simply not enough at the national level. Too many state's interests and citizens being left out, abandoned, turned a blind eye on, etc...
Feel free to add anything. - HOJ
Post a Comment
<< Home