There is ONE thing that would fix much that is wrong with government....

[tex-wyo-dem]

and how government serves the people...

That ONE thing is:

100% PUBLICALLY FUNDED ELECTIONS!

Imagine an election where each candidate, primary through the general election, is provided the exact same amount of $$$ to use for their campaigns. No private of corporate funds at all. Dennis Kucinich would receive the same amount of funds as Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama...Ron Paul would receive the same amount of campaign funds as Mitt Romney and John McCain.

This would absolutely neuter Citizens United and the influence of big money in politics.

This would eliminate politicians spending half their time holding fundraisers and kissing up to their special interests. Instead they would actually spend their time working for the people rather than their next election.

It would force candidates and elected officials to actually answer to and promote policy that would benefit the majority of the people rather than the wealthy minority since big money for elections would be out of the picture.

The fundamental landscape of politics in Washington all the way down to local government would change in ONE election cycle!

Now...

What chance does this have of ever happening? Almost none, unless a SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY demands publicly financed elections....and by significant, I mean 70, 80, 90% focusing on this issue constantly, consistently and over a long term. No letting up...ever.

So that means getting buy not from not only liberals and progressive, but independents and, yes, even hardline RWers and Tea Party-ers.

Impossible you say? I say NOT...

I believe the beauty of this issue is that it can, if presented in the proper way, get support across the entire political spectrum from progressives to tea party-er, because each camp would believe that it would be to their political advantage. In other words, we progressives believe that most people feel as we do about issues and, therefore, more progressive candidates would be elected. On the flip-side, tea party-ers feel the same exact way (believe it or not).

The main sticking point with RWers, of course, would be how elections would be funded. They would almost certainly be against funding them through the Treasury, but I think this is an issue that can be worked out...some random ideas:

- Any individual or private interest that would normally donate to elections can continue to, but would have to do so through a general fund that would be distributed evenly among all candidates.

- The level of election funding to each candidate could be adjusted up or down depending on various factors.

- The government could force by law that any media describing themselves and "news" would be required to give equal time and exposure to candidates, primary through general. This would, in effect, be part of said candidates campaigning and the cost would be put on the "news" organization.

and so on...

Passing something this transformative will be difficult. It will require ALL of us to get on board and to apply unwavering, consistent and constant pressure over the long term.

I firmly believe that this is the only way we will be able to stop the corporate raiders from taking over everything. It's this only way our country is going to be able to survive.

[yourout]

1. While I agree there are two problems......We Dems can't agree to this until the Pukes do and they...

NEVER will.

Ever.

[tex-wyo-dem]

3. But why wouldn't they?

If they believe that it would result in GOP/Tea-party gains, why wouldn't they?

and we believe it would result in gains for us.

win-win so to speak

[RC]

10. And that is the major problem right now. Democrats will/do not advocate anything

unless they think the Republicans will go along with it to some degree. That has to stop. Because of that mind set, it is government(business) against the people, with the lowest common denominator in charge.

We need to start doing what is right and stop bowing down to the Right.

[Enthusiast]

12. You are right on!....nt

[rsmith6621]

2. B I N G O...The OP Understands...

....... Not only public funding but a shorter election cycle...18 months is to long and again EXPENSIVE.

I have thought the Presidential election should be like this...

Presidents Day...would be the only day candidates can announce their intentions and begin fund raising.

St Patty's Day.... First day on the campaign trail

Last two weeks of August.... Each part has their convention

September 1st General election campaigns may start.

November.... General election....

[stuckinarut]

4. The issue is that a privately funded legislature will NEVER..

Vote to bite the hand that got them there. When I think of this solution, I am reminded of just how deep the shit is around our necks. Unfortunately this change could not come from within at this point...And that only leaves one other way.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Sad but true.

The orange mambo was the wankie wanker. Ledo's was the giveaway.

[Township75]

5. Doesn't much of Europe have PF elections?

Any it didn't do much to avoid austerity, wars, and debt crisis over there.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. I do not think anyone is claiming it is a cure all.

So that framing is way out of right field. If it does in fact come out to a wash, then their system is still better simply for the vast savings, both in money and in national energies. Why let these showboats parade around for endless months? We have better things to do than watch some fundraising orgy roll on and on. Or do you think 18 to 24 months of the Republican road show is better?

[hfojvt]

8. not sure I buy it as a panacea

imagine Ralph Nader getting just as much money as Al Gore. Imagine David Duke getting taxpayer money to run for office.

Plus, how do you stop a candidate from spending his/her own money and time.

For example, when I ran for office I drove around the district. Went to a bunch of the city band concerts in Iola. In theory as a candidate, I could goto Kiwanis meetings in Lawerence, Topeka, Pittsburg, etc. and introduce myself. I could also goto city band concerts in Parsons, and events in Osawatomie and introduce myself.

Then, there are the advantages of incumbents. Incumbents like Jerry Moran, Sam Brownback, Lynn Jenkins. She gets to send mailers to everybody in the district. Mailers that are printed, published, and mailed at taxpayer expense. That's a nice little campaign brochure that her opponent does not get to match, certainly not at taxpayer expense. Then as part of doing their job, incumbents travel all over the district - again, at taxpayer expense (and with no matching funds for challengers) and when they do so, the mayors come out to meet them, and the newspapers put their picture on the front page. Is there gonna be equal coverage for challengers? How could there be, when a Senator is not gonna face an election for another 3,4, or 5 years?

I don't think public funding of elections is the answer to that many problems. Nor is it going to get support among a public that already does not want to pay more taxes for the things government already does.

[tex-wyo-dem]

9. What you're describing is not 100% publically financed...

personal funds is still private financing.

[hfojvt]

11. yeah, but the government cannot stop me from spending my owns funds

and they cannot restrict my travel.

And if I get $500,000 to spend on the campaign, including travel expenses, and the incumbent gets $500,000 to spend plus the travel that the government is already paying for, then we are not on an equal playing field. Not unless all the travel and all the mailing that an incumbent does is also included as part of their campaign funds.

I still think there are several drawbacks.
1. tax increases to pay for what most people now get for free
2. public money going to people like David Duke and Lyndon LaRouche that most of the public doesn't want to finance. And LaRouche gets just as much money as Al Gore.
3. a plethora of fringe candidates using public money to spread their fringe messages. If you can run for office for free, then tons of people are gonna do it. So here's the Democratic primary with fifteen or twenty candidates (all getting taxpayer funds - is it limited? Then each candidate gets a mere $2,000 or something?) So there's your newspaper giving equal space to fifteen candidates, except that most voters are not gonna want to read that much. But it's okay though, because I have just as much money to spend as Al Franken and Sonny Bono. (although under the current system they have a fame advantage AND a money advantage, but at least in theory a non-famous person could beat their fame advantage by out-spending them.)

[joshcryer]

13. No, we need proportional representation. Consider: 5000 Congress people, etc.