Robert Reich has a good idea for campaign reform.

[alfredo]

He said all donations should go into a blind trust. That way it would be difficult for a candidate to know who donated and how much.

What do you think of that idea? If you like it, would you promote it to your representative?

[Ilsa]

1. I like it, but the donors would file suit saying they were denied

their free speech rights by propping up the candidates of their choice.

[groovedaddy]

3. It sounds like the candidate of their choice would get the money

they just wouldn't know where the money came from - hence, no quid quo pro situation should arise (unless, of course, they show them the canceled check!). Also, would this do away with reporting?

[bluerum]

4. Big donors can publish their receipts in the newspapers that they own.

They can broadcast their donations on all their radio and television stations.

How is free speech being denied?

[Ilsa]

5. Well, that sort of eliminates the purpose of the blind trust, doesn't it, if

the donors are allowed to publish their donations? I thought the point was to prevent the candidates from knowing where the funds were coming from.

[bluerum]

8. Assuming that you can trust all you read and hear. I think that if big

biddness had to publicly announce who they were in bed with their partners would tell them to keep their voices down.

But you are right - kind of defeats the purpose.

I still like the idea of a kind of political party slush fund that all candidates get a percentage of. That way we fund every candidate from one party or another whether. Equal cash and equal air time until the votes come in.

[Ilsa]

10. That sounds good to me also.

I really hate the way campaigns are funded now.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. I like it...no favors owed!

Would I promote it to my useless piece of crap repuke Rep.? No. He doesn't care what I think.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. it wouldn't work

you really think it would be impossible for someone to get word to a candidate about their donations?

No... full disclosure is better.

[alfredo]

11. How many businessmen would lie to the candidate. I'm sure many

don't like being shook down by powerful politicians. You know, businesses are in a position where they are in effect paying protection money to their representatives. They could be holding onto their money but telling the man on the appropriations they gave until it hurt.

I think if we broke this game up, both the pol and the capitalist would feel some relief.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. another problem

is that the public would no longer know who's giving what to who.

I just don't think ADDING secrecy to the process would help.

[alfredo]

14. But most importantly the candidate will not know if that businessman

did give as he said, or is just being a businessman. There will be no way other than showing the cancelled check, and then that could put them under suspicion for bribery, or the candidate for coercion. It might be nothing more than an air of suspicion between the two, but as I said before, it could be evidence of something more sinister.

Doubt will be our friend.

[postulater]

7. I think every ad and every event

should list the sponsors whose money paid for it. Just like the credits at the end of the movie.

[valerief]

9. Paper voting. Paper voting. Paper voting. First things first. nt

[Trillo]

12. Does this mean that sites like opensecrets.org

would be out of info to give us? (while the largess still flowed)

[alfredo]

15. If the candidate doesn't know the source of the money, then it would be

more difficult for him or her to reward the donor. The donor would have less reason to give, and would be less likely to be coerced to give. There would always be doubt at to whether the donor is telling the truth about contributions unless they show unambiguous proof of a contribution. I think ethical and legal barriers can be erected to make it risky to divulge a contribution and the amount of that contribution.

Businesses don't like having to bribe lawmakers, but under the present system they know if they don't, their competitors will.

[Trillo]

17. In the current system there are a limited number of very wealthy entities.

Fewer and richer all the time.

While I understand what you're saying, it would also deprive us of knowing whose pocket bought which legislator. Since corporate appears largely as a shell game that gives the appearance of vastly larger numbers of corporations than there are owners, (with the directors sitting on each others boards) I question the value of hiding who's donating.

It also means that those who will run for office will still need the backing of money for their campaigns; that the wealthy will need to vote with their dollars to find the candidates with enough money (the wealthys' votes) to run for office, so we will still have a system run by the wealthy, and with less disclosure. Yes, perhaps that particular legislator will not favor the AMA over the NEA (because he/she doesn't know the precise donation ratio of each) in legislative efforts, but both the AMA and the NEA (for example) will be given preferential status versus the common citizen who merely votes at election time, because there are a limited number of Big Donators.

This means we'll still have a corporatist enabled system instead of a people enabled system.

It seems to me that public financing and -- no corporate money(.) -- in elections is better.

[alfredo]

19. I'm a fan of public financing, but I thought Reich has a good idea.

The hard part is keeping it secret from the candidates. Of course, The Sierra Club could also say they gave $20,000 and the candidate won't know for sure if they did. At least they won't know until the Sierra Club releases their annual report.

[donkeyotay]

16. But that would defeat the whole purpose of the donations.

These donors aren't donating because they're patriotic. They want something in exchange. This would wreck the whole system. Donations would plummet to zero and then the taxpayers would have to step in and fund elections. :rofl:

[hughee99]

18. I'll bet the candidates love this...

It would shield them from any criticism while their minions were free to solicit funds from sources who would provide embarrassment. "It's not my fault, I didn't know a convicted felon donated money to me...". Besides, if you donated, or "bundled" 500k for a candidate, they won't need to see your checks to know who you are and what you've done for them.

IMHO, this sounds like a pretty good CYA for candidates, but I doubt it will do much to fix anything.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Stinky the Clown has an idea for campaign finance reform

Public Funding.

Take a dime, go to jail.

Give a dime, go to jail.

[SoCalDem]

21. My idea is better, Robert..

FREE television time on political channels reserved just for them.. and 6 month MAXIMUM campaigns funded by public money..no "need" for the secret, friends-only events like they have now for fund raising.


Maximums inforced, so no one gets "extra"..


Regional primaries, with order drawn randomly..one month apart



................................................

Nationally held offices' elections on separate paper ballots...Maximum choices ever on a ballot? THREE... How hard is that?

a sharpie, a 5 x 7 index card sized ballot... a check box for president..congress..senate

that's IT!

If one wants to vote for dogcatcher, city council, school bonds, whatever, they can ...but the federal part of the election would the on standardized HUMAN counted ballots..easy to store..easy to recount..


..................................

Anyone found collecting "private" money would be disqualified..

No need for lobbyists, and no favors owed..