Presidential Term Limits

[rraley]

Originally posted by sleuth
Trying this question again...

Current political campaigns are run by "private" money, which comes from private and corporate donors. This money is then turned around and used to pay for television commercials and traveling expenses. I would like the system to be run by "public" money. That is, campaigns are only run by public money that comes from the United States treasury. That way, the influence of large corporate and private donors is removed. Commercial ads are limited and are run without charge while free air time is granted to the candidates. They have a similiar system in Britain and Canada I do believe.

But the problem with the public system is that it does cost alot of money (especially if all candidates are provided money). It would have to be used for every office down through the House of Representatives. And you know that the pesky third parties are gonna want money even though only 300 people support them. Furthermore, Supreme Court decisions have held that a campaign contribution is a form of "expressive" speech, much like burning the American flag. So, it won't happen, and I am not entirely sure that it would be best for the Treasury, but in the perfect world, it would be nice.

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by rraley
But the problem with the public system is that it does cost alot of money (especially if all candidates are provided money). It would have to be used for every office down through the House of Representatives. And you know that the pesky third parties are gonna want money even though only 300 people support them. Furthermore, Supreme Court decisions have held that a campaign contribution is a form of "expressive" speech, much like burning the American flag. So, it won't happen, and I am not entirely sure that it would be best for the Treasury, but in the perfect world, it would be nice.

I see your point.

It seems that you would have to make some sort "qualification" for receiving public money... that is... since you have to have a petition of X number of signatures to get on the ballot, you could tie the funding issue to the number of signatures.

Perhaps a combination of both... Every candidate who can get on the ballot is given a fixed sum of public dollars, and their only allowed to accept up to a fixed sum of private dollars, too. :shrug:

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by sleuth
I see your point.

It seems that you would have to make some sort "qualification" for receiving public money... that is... since you have to have a petition of X number of signatures to get on the ballot, you could tie the funding issue to the number of signatures.

Perhaps a combination of both... Every candidate who can get on the ballot is given a fixed sum of public dollars, and their only allowed to accept up to a fixed sum of private dollars, too. :shrug:

Well currently, a party must receive 5% of the popular vote in a presidential election to qualify for public funds that total $12 million. But the third parties think that even that figure should be lower.

The problem is that for pubic financing to really work, each candidate for the House and the Senate would have to receive public money. I suppose, though, that if TV advertising was free (and limited so that the candidates wouldn't saturate the airwaves), that it could all work out and not cost too much.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by rraley
It did become law after President Bush signed it and soft money is now banned for presidential candidates and political parties. Independent groups, like liberal moveon.org and conservative Citizens United, are allowed to use it, however, because of loopholes. The FEC recently said that they would not rule on the validity of these groups until after this election.

Sorry but you are incorrect, it was the Shays-Meehan version that became Public Law 107-155. Do a little research and check it out for yourself.

 

[Hessian]

Buzz

Stories that are good have "legs"...
Politicians earnestly want to build momentum.
What better way than to hold primaries very close to the convention and have the last 20 primaries/caucuses to be "silent."
(only to be revealed at the convention) Wouldn't the media love the air of expectation?
Its like the last episode of Survivor!

John Kerry's home state is prowd of its town meeting concept...why not take the convention away from Hollywood, and hand it back to the people?

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by rraley
pubic financing

Freudian slip, perhaps?

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by Ken King
Sorry but you are incorrect, it was the Shays-Meehan version that became Public Law 107-155. Do a little research and check it out for yourself.

From my research, Shays-Meehan is exactly like the McCain-Feingold bill. When it is referenced in the media, they all refer to it as McCain-Feingold.

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by sleuth
Freudian slip, perhaps?

Damn typing too fast.

 

[rraley]

Re: Re: rraley is right on this...

Originally posted by sleuth
I agree that they would be gripping...but the truth is... with today's political environment, unless a scandal broke between the primaries and the convention, or unless the primaries were very close and there was reason to believe the winner was losing support, there's no way in hell that a party would choose a second place primary winner over a first place winner.

The way to make conventions closer is to have less primaries like they did in the 1960s (in 1960, there were only ten primaries; all the other delegates were chosen as unpledged and their votes were up for grabs at the convention). I think that vice-presidential nominees should be nominated at the convention as well where there are the possibilities for deals like the whole Ford instance in 1980.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by rraley
From my research, Shays-Meehan is exactly like the McCain-Feingold bill. When it is referenced in the media, they all refer to it as McCain-Feingold.

Yep, pretty much a mirror image, but it was the House version that passed, thus the Shays-Meehan bill is how they should refer to it. Do you actually expect the media to be 100% accurate? I find the Library of Congress a better source on legislation information.

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by Ken King
Yep, pretty much a mirror image, but it was the House version that passed, thus the Shays-Meehan bill is how they should refer to it. Do you actually expect the media to be 100% accurate? I find the Library of Congress a better source on legislation information.

Do I expect the media to be accurate? HELL NO. I was so upset with them during the primaries, but eh, that's the past. The Library of Congress is indeed excellent.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Hmmm I proposed the single six year term a couple years ago.

The problem with all politicians is that they are too buys keeping their job to do their job.