What if You Could Save Our Democracy by Giving $0?

Questions (0.00 / 0)

I've seen this before, and maybe I'm the only one confused by it (which wouldn't suprise me at all. LOL!)

Confusing part #1: If politicians are taking money from special interests because the money they raise just from citizens isn't enough to fund their campaigns, why would they choose taking the money from the citizens instead of the money from special interests? Pledging to take away an insufficient amount of money dosn't seem like a good motivation for politicians (who arn't good at heart) to agree to this.

Confusing part #2: The pitch for signing this pledge is that it dosn't cost you any money, but the pledge says that you won't contribute money unless they support this legislation...Isn't that a double negative? In other words, you are pledging to give money to candidates who supports the legislation...So how does that not cost you anything?

Thank you in advance for clarifying this for me!

---

by: jjem @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 19:45:29 PM CST

Clarification (4.00 / 1)

1) The point is, if all campaigns are bound by the public finance rule, then your opponent can't outspend you, and thus the "insufficient funds" issue goes away.

2) The most active people (aka those most likely to sign such a pledge) already donate to candidates, even if it's just $5 - $10. These people not only tend to donate, they also tend to talk about politics with friends and family (making them vote influencers) and a good chunk of them even do campaign grunt-work. So these are exactly the people on-the-ground who tend to make the most difference in campaigns.

Campaign money from big donors is only part of what's needed to win (just ask Richard Tarrant) - you need support "on-the-ground," too, so if a good chunk of your "boots-on-the-ground" are telling you that they won't be there for you unless you support this, you're likely to think twice about not supporting it. At least that's the theory.

The pledge system tracks how much each pledger has donated in the past via public records, and adds it all up, to determine how much a particular candidate is going to lose in donations alone. Last I had checked, there were already over $400,000 worth of pledges, based on past donation histories of those who took the pledge. It does not count $ from people who have not donated, though it does count them as constituents who want to see this legislation pass.

Additionally, if enough people pledge, the amounts can be substantial.  Here's a screenshot of the amounts being withheld from the top "losers" so far:

As for how much support the idea has, this is from the Change-Congress.org site:

A poll by Celinda Lake in November 2008 found the public supports such a proposal 69% to 13%, including overwhelming majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

The lead sponsors of this legislation are the 2nd-ranking member of the Senate (Durbin) and 4th-ranking member of the House (Larson). Barack Obama is also on the record supporting congressional public financing and an overhaul of presidential public financing, increasing the impetus for a national debate about this issue. Also, the story of Obama's people-powered campaign is still fresh in everyone's minds.

And last Congress, before any of this recent momentum, there were already 10 senators and nearly 60 House members co-sponsoring congressional public financing legislation.

The only thing standing in our way is apathy.

...

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 18:17:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: jjem @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 19:53:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My really, really big problem with public financing ... (0.00 / 0)

The elected politicians will get to set the rules as to who does or doesn't qualify.

("My opinion based on direct experience" alert) Instant runoff voting hasn't passed in Vermont because it makes challenging the powers that be vulnerable to citizen's choice.

The Democratic Party doesn't want this challenge any more than the Republican Party, and believe me ... the Republican Party (especially their more radical wings such as the "let's control women's bodies crowd) is at times paranoid about this. (And yes ... look for IRV in the Democratic platform .. the only "runoff" mentioned has to do with storm water.)

Every now and then we hear the rumblings of making it more difficult to get on statewide ballots. We're forced into supporting the big party system through the tax funded primary system.

Public financing will put the full power of political purse in the hands of these very same people. Democratic and Republican parties ... both of whom have already miserably failed us when it comes to electoral reforms.

They'll be looking out for themselves.

This is not a wise choice.

And no, I'm not standing up for the status quo.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 05:03:06 AM CST

a good point, (0.00 / 0)

I can't believe this never occurred to me.

How, then, do we go about getting the money out of politics?

---

by: Ivan Jacobs @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 15:36:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Start with where the bulk of the money is spent ... (0.00 / 0)

I say be smarter!

Here's OpenSecrects version of campaign expenditures, and I'll rely on these because OpenSecrets has shown every indication of being accurate and up to date.

The largest expense reported is for "media", but that understates the total expenses that fall under the heading of "communications". I would argue EVERYTHING in a political campaign is about communications, and that is where I would aim any plan to truly reform how our political campaigns are run (as opposed to funded).

I also want to stipulate that there will always be ways to game "the system" ... and while the most blatant and egregious can and should be dealt with by law, if we spend too much time and energy trying to be proscriptive we forget to be prescriptive.

So we work our way to the goal of campaign finance reform. For me the goal statement is wrong ... it's not campaign finance reform we want, I believe, but instead we want campaign reform. And because political campaigns are about communications we need to look at this area.

(in my opinion) So for political campaigns we need: local and diverse ownership of radio, television and newspaper to include greater public access programs for all three areas; and internet neutrality. Combine accessibility to phone technologies such as text messaging with the above and you get a potential powerhouse for very little cash output.

These actions would relieve the need for a lion's dinosaur's share of the money.

Rich Tarrant's large margin loss to Sanders in '06 despite huge sums of money spent on mass media certainly illustrates that cash is not a substitute for popularity.

I do believe we need to restrict political speech to natural persons only, and I do believe we need to put in firm political donation limits, but those ideas are only to keep a few powerhouses from dominating the discussion with too little popular support. (Yes ... I'm ready and willing to take on the free speech issue here ... after all the constitution is not a suicide pact.)

But who gets the money and the message they espouse should not be the prerogative of the incumbent powers.

So I say let's get smarter, force the channels of communications to open and tamp down the ability for individual's to dominate the debate.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:56:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]