Campaign Finance Reform & the River Tax Vote

[Bledsoe]

Again, Friendly Bear over on the "Sign" thread has raised a valid point with the unlimited amount of funds corporations and wealthy River Tax supporters can give.  

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7666
Tulsa Now Forum - Sign Sign Everywhere a Sign..........

These are important issues that need to be discussed in its own thread.

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

As I said before-----

$  =  Free Speech.

If you believe in free speech then those that have $ get to speak without limitation, especially government limitation.  This is not Burma.

See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
Buckley v.
I suppose you could design a system that would have public financing of issues like the River Tax--pro/con, but then you might have folks like Accountability Burns and Paul Tay getting public money--not that I don't agree with them more often than not.

Well, for some reason, there ARE campaign limits on what state and local candidates can raise from individual contributors.  That fact does NOT seem to violate any free speech rights.

The problem of NO LIMITS on what can be spent on Tax Issues, is that the Tax Vampires, who fully expect to be the recipients of the tax largesse, have so MUCH free speech funded by their $millions that they simply DROWN OUT the free speech rights of anyone else.

Why?  Because free speech isn't really without cost?

Oh, you can stand on the sidewalk and shout VOTE NO all day, and hold up a NO RIVER TAX sign until you arms fall off.

The Tax Vampires have wall-to-wall Mass Media buys, slickly constructed multi-color litho direct mail, telephone canvassers, Push-Polls, in-kind contributions provided by Cocks Cable TV, multiple ads on Channel 862, 24x7 radio spots, and newspaper "news" coordinated with Echo-Chamber Editorials daily in the Lorton's World.

The local controlling power Oligarch can boastfully say:  Ain't free speech great?

[:O]

If you will read the Buckley decision, SCOTUS indicates there can be no limit on what a individual candidate can spend of his/her own money.  That would be a unconstitutional limit on free speech.  We have seen several local examples of this (Don  McCorkel & Kathy Taylor) and several national examples (Mitt Romney & Steve Forbes).

The Buckley Wikie article (see above) has a critique of this view:

"Criticism

Although the decision upheld restrictions on the size of campaign contributions, because it struck down limits on expenditures some argue that this precedent allows those with great wealth to effectively drown out the speech average citizens. Among those criticizing the decision on this line was philosopher John Rawls, who wrote that the Court's decision "runs the risk of endorsing the view that fair representation is representation according to the amount of influence effectively exerted." (See: wealth primary.)

On a somewhat different note, Justice Byron White, in dissent, argued that the entire law should have been upheld, in deference to Congress's greater knowledge and expertise on the issue.

From the other side, some disagree vigorously with Buckley on the grounds that it sustained some limits on campaign contributions which, they argue, are protected by the First Amendment as free speech. This position was advanced by Chief Justice Warren Burger in his dissent, who claimed that individual contributions and expenditures are protected speech acts. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, argued for overturning Buckley on these grounds, but their position has not been adopted by the court. Despite criticism of Buckley from both sides, the case remains the starting point for judicial analysis of the constitutionality of campaign finance restrictions. See e.g. McConnell v. FEC, upholding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("McCain-Feingold Bill"). This legislation included a prohibition on soft money as well as limits on independent expenditures by private groups."

On the national issue side, George Soros is an example of $ and free speech being unrestricted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
George Soros - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, committed $5 million to MoveOn, while he and his friend Peter Lewis each gave America Coming Together $10 million. (All were groups that worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election.) On September 28, 2004 he dedicated more money to the campaign and kicked off his own multi-state tour with a speech: Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush[20] delivered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

The online transcript to this speech received many hits after Dick Cheney accidentally referred to FactCheck.org as "factcheck.com" in the Vice Presidential debate, causing the owner of that domain to redirect all traffic to Soros's site. [21]

Soros was not a large donor to US political causes until the U.S. presidential election, 2004, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003-2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 Groups dedicated to defeating President Bush. Despite Soros' efforts, Bush was reelected to a second term as president in U.S. presidential election, 2004.

After Bush's reelection in 2004, Soros and other wealthy liberal political donors backed a new political fundraising group called Democracy Alliance which aims to support the goals of the U.S. Democratic Party.[22][23]

Soros has been criticized for his large donations, as he also pushed for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which was intended to ban "soft money" contributions to federal election campaigns. Soros has responded that his donations to unaffiliated organizations do not raise the same corruption issues as donations directly to the candidates or political parties.

A Republican National Committee spokeswoman said,

   "It's incredibly ironic that George Soros is trying to create a more open society by using an unregulated, under-the-radar-screen, shadowy, soft-money group to do it. George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party."[24]

Harken Energy, a firm partly owned by Soros, did business with George W. Bush in 1986 by buying his oil company, Spectrum 7."


As far as I know, there is no law in any jurisdiction that would place a limit on contributions to issue elections, such as tax votes or petition drives.  I would be interested  if someone can direct out attention to one.

On the individual candidate level, as DoubleA points out, many jurisdictions are adopting public financing.  This would be a great reform and since it is voluntary it is constitutional.

See:

http://www.publicampaign.org/node/34047
How Clean Elections Works | Public Campaign

Let's discuss/debate what reforms could be brought to issues like the river tax, where many corporations and other wealthy individuals contribute unlimited amounts and some would say drown out the free speech of the opposition.

[RecycleMichael]

I don't know what is broken with current financing that would be better solved by public financing.

The last thing I want is for my public dollars to be spent for Paul Tay and Accountability Burns to run for office. They are misguided fools who think everything is a joke and I don't want to pay for them to be on stage.

If you didn't have to beg for money from your friends or open your own wallet, everybody would be a politician.

How do we stop that?

[Bledsoe]

If you will look at the suggested laws promoted at

http://www.publicampaign.org/node/34047
How Clean Elections Works | Public Campaign

you will see that there are safe guards that place reasonable and effective limitations on candidates like Burns and Tay.  Generally all candidates who seek public financing are required to get a petition signed by a number of persons (something like 250-500) who commit to give a modest sum--like $50 to $100.

This has been effective and keep the "flake" candidate from getting public financing.

To encourage the other side to participate, when a non-qualified opponent of a qualified public finance candidate decides to dump a large amount of his own money or gets a huge maxed out contribution from a wealth individual--the public finance fund matches the amount and gives it to you, in effect equalizing the contributions.

This has caused a dramatic change in politics in Arizona, moving it from a state dominated by wealth special interest to one now electing progressive, reform-minded and populist candidates from both parties.  

What is broken is that in Oklahoma many of our campaigns are dominated by money and those who control money, rather than ideas and public policy and "the people."

Just check out this google thread:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=arizona+public+finance+law&spell=1
arizona public finance law - Google Search

See also:

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=507399

[RecycleMichael]

Thanks, Bledsoe.

I would hope that there be a slightly higher threshhold than 250 names on a petition. Even the crazy guy in the Santa suit could probably get that many and then we would all have to pay to hear his commercials.

I also don't think that that many elections are being bought...at least not yet. There was no big campaign money in any of the council races and most of the state representative races were won by regularly paid folk.

If only rich people win, how did Maria Barnes, Jeannie McDaniel, Roscoe Turner, Jack Henderson, Dennis Troyer, Eric Proctor and others win?

I am not against changing election rules, but don't make me pay for idiots just trying to get attention.

[Double A]

We could have clean elections for the city on the ballot to be decided by the voters in the upcoming Council elections. There's still time.

[pmcalk]

I don't have a problem with Clean Elections; however, I think it is important to point out  that some interesting evidence has shown that the correlation between money and winning elections is not necessarily cause and effect.  For those who have read Freakonomics, Levitt argues quite persuasively that, in fact, it is not that money = campaign success, but that a perceived successful campaign draws in more money.  In other words, if most people think Obama is the most likely candidate to win, most people will give him money.  Since most people think he will win, he is the most likely candidate to win, regardless of the money.  If you compare that to candidates who have lots of money, but mostly their own (eg, Forbes, Perot, McCorkle), the money makes very little difference.

If true, this would go against the idea that political positions can be "bought" through campaign donations.  However, you still have the problem of candidates feeling obligated to those who donated to their candidacy after the election.  Clean Elections could resolve that issue; but you could also look at conflicts of interest laws as well.

[Double A]

I thought an opinion poll might be helpful to gauge support for this or the lack thereof.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

I don't know what is broken with current financing that would be better solved by public financing.

The last thing I want is for my public dollars to be spent for Paul Tay and Accountability Burns to run for office. They are misguided fools who think everything is a joke and I don't want to pay for them to be on stage.

If you didn't have to beg for money from your friends or open your own wallet, everybody would be a politician.

How do we stop that?

How about the fact we had million dollar campaigns in the last election for a position that doesn't even pay a half of that over the course of term. If you don't see the the problem with that, you are more deluded than I thought.
It's very clear that you prefer the status qou, it's been very good to you and yours.

[RecycleMichael]

You pick one election (one which your candidate lost) and you want to change all the rules.

Your posts remind me of cheap beer...bitter and only good as an excuse to act stupid.

[Double A]

I been advocating this long before the last mayoral election. Your little sour grapes argument doesn't hold water. My statements weren't in reference to any candidate, that is your assumption. Once again, try to force your pathetic spin into my mouth and I'll chew it up and spit it back in your fat face.

[RecycleMichael]

Is it because you are poor you hate the rich?

I am just confused as to what has happened in your life to make you write lists of have and have-nots and obsess with hating the haves? Almost every post you make attacks everybody...from the chamber to the mayor to the banker to the commissioner including democrats and republicans...it is impressive that you remain such an equal opportunity hater.

Did you not get enough love ar attention at a crucial time in your childhood?  

Are you wanting to change the rules because you really want to be one of the insiders and you think it is all connected to money?

Don't be afraid. Show what you got and run for office. If you win, you will be accepted. If you lose, you can achieve cult status up there with Paul Tay and Virginia Jenner.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Is it because you are poor you hate the rich?

I am just confused as to what has happened in your life to make you write lists of have and have-nots and obsess with hating the haves? Almost every post you make attacks everybody...from the chamber to the mayor to the banker to the commissioner including democrats and republicans...it is impressive that you remain such an equal opportunity hater.

Did you not get enough love ar attention at a crucial time in your childhood?  

Are you wanting to change the rules because you really want to be one of the insiders and you think it is all connected to money?

Don't be afraid. Show what you got and run for office. If you win, you will be accepted. If you lose, you can achieve cult status up there with Paul Tay and Virginia Jenner.

What's holding you back big boy?

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

I don't know what is broken with current financing that would be better solved by public financing.

The last thing I want is for my public dollars to be spent for Paul Tay and Accountability Burns to run for office. They are misguided fools who think everything is a joke and I don't want to pay for them to be on stage.

If you didn't have to beg for money from your friends or open your own wallet, everybody would be a politician.

How do we stop that?

How about the fact we had million dollar campaigns in the last election for a position that doesn't even pay a half of that over the course of term. If you don't see the the problem with that, you are more deluded than I thought.
It's very clear that you prefer the status qou, it's been very good to you and yours.

Your reference to the last mayor's race doesn't support your argument.  Granted, both candidates spent an obscene amount of money; but in the end it didn't matter.  As I recall, McCorkle outspent Taylor, yet he lost.  So Levitt is correct in this case--more people gave money to Taylor than McCorkle.  But they both spent similar amounts on their campaign.  Taylor won because more people supported her, not because she had more money.  Money doesn't cause support; it is indicative of it.  

Again, I tend to support Clean Elections, but mainly at the national level, where you must have a ton of money to even get your message out.  But at the local level, I don't think its as big of an issue.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

I don't know what is broken with current financing that would be better solved by public financing.

The last thing I want is for my public dollars to be spent for Paul Tay and Accountability Burns to run for office. They are misguided fools who think everything is a joke and I don't want to pay for them to be on stage.

If you didn't have to beg for money from your friends or open your own wallet, everybody would be a politician.

How do we stop that?

How about the fact we had million dollar campaigns in the last election for a position that doesn't even pay a half of that over the course of term. If you don't see the the problem with that, you are more deluded than I thought.
It's very clear that you prefer the status qou, it's been very good to you and yours.

Your reference to the last mayor's race doesn't support your argument.  Granted, both candidates spent an obscene amount of money; but in the end it didn't matter.  As I recall, McCorkle outspent Taylor, yet he lost.  So Levitt is correct in this case--more people gave money to Taylor than McCorkle.  But they both spent similar amounts on their campaign.  Taylor won because more people supported her, not because she had more money.  Money doesn't cause support; it is indicative of it.  

Again, I tend to support Clean Elections, but mainly at the national level, where you must have a ton of money to even get your message out.  But at the local level, I don't think its as big of an issue.

That's exactly my problem, thanks for illustrating it more clearly. There is something inherently wrong with a system where only millionaires with million dollar war chests dominate elections at the local or national levels. This only leads to candidates preoccupied with chasing campaign cash instead of connecting with their constituents.

[RecycleMichael]

But you worked in the campaign of one of those millionaires. Are you a hypocrite?