Draginol Draginol

Campaign finance reform isn't reform

▼

Campaign finance reform isn't reform

Why I don't like limits on political spending

from JoeUser Forums

Limiting people’s ability to participate in democracy is not good.

When you limit the ability of citizens to participate in the political process by restricting financial contributions you inevitably end up with a concentration of political power in the hands of those have the ability to get the word out without having to spend money.

This so-called reform would be little more than merely handing power to big media companies, celebrities and anyone else who can get air time without having to spend money.

politics
9,105 views 30 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Something strikes me about this discussion. It seems the problem lies how to control the campaigning.

I see 2 problems that caused the first one:

1)Education of voters.

I think the problem lies in educating the voters. I believe this is about starting with the kids, school shouldn't be solely focused on teaching kids "facts". In my opinion it is equally (if not more) important to teach kids to be critical towards the information that get thrown at them.

If the part of the voters who react simply on a tv-add is to high then there is a need for education

2) The presidental system

The fact that one man is handed such great power will always cause a tough battle for that seat. I live in Denmark. We have a prime minister elected by Congress (or what is more or less the same as congress). In other words if i want influence on who should be prime minister i can do 2 things: 1) run for "congress" 2) vote on the party (we have around 10 different parties) that has my "favorite" as candidate.

I'm not saying this system is better, just different.

I see now (after writing this) that since 2) will always be there , there will always be some kind of problem in relation to campaigning. Education can only limit the influence campaigning has.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Frank,
a system where political donations are anonymous is already in place in a number of European countries. It is indeed a workable system. As for your second idea, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that on election day I can drive to a neighbouring district and vote there? Why? Why should I have any say in who represents that district? I am amazed that the incumbant re-election numbers are so high! Do people really feel that they do such a good job? Who do people blame when something is worng such as high uinemployment? The president?

Paul.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
How would anonymous donations prevent the richest from having the most influence as they know? If anything, it'd make it harder to determine if they are being funded completely big businesses or not.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anonymous donations mean that the candidates and political parties do not know who provided the donation. More importantly they don't know the size of donations or where they come from. They just receive the donations through a neutral body.

A candidate therefore feels no obligation towards anyone as they have no idea who funded their election campaign. It's designed to remove the risk of donors having undue influence on politicians.

Paul.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
That makes sense. It does seem like a good idea.