Would You Support This?

I think campaign finance reform is the linchpin to all the other issues going on.

You asked for people not to poke holes, so I won't point out the First Amendment issues. Oops :)

But I like the general idea!

I don't think that you and I agree on much politically, Cheryl, but this sounds pretty great to me. I am happy to make this the first time :)

I think that's a fantastic idea that both parties could get behind. My husband is one end of the political spectrum (the end you like to hang out on) and I am on the other. We both complain about the insane amount of money, time, negativity, etc that goes into campaigning. From local to federal, I am sick to death of it! So, in my opinion, great idea but probably difficult to impossible to enforce.

I'm one of those freaking liberals :)
And I love your idea.
I HATE the bashing both sides do. I am educated and intelligent. I can do my own research on the candidates voting history, etc. I just want them to tell me what THEY are going to do as president! I don't want to hear how terrible the other guy is. I KNOW how terrible the other guy is! lol

I agree with this...BUT...I think they should get a separate amount for security. It's been proven (by unsafe situations) that these candidates are in legitimate danger, at times. I think we can all agree, that we don't want any of them (or their families) harmed. I think they should get a certain amount for campaigning, and a certain amount for security.

Um...I think everyone probably agrees that there need to be campaign reform and a reduction in lobbyists. This isn't really a new idea or anything.

Careful what you *wish* for--what's good for the goose, after all....

You realize, of course that Mitt has enough personal wealth that he hasn't worked in the private sector or gotten paid since 2001 when he resigned from Bain capital and has been campaigning ever since. Now THAT's a lot of money...

I've always said campaigns should be short and sweet so that the people that are paid to RUN THE COUNTRY can concentrate on that, instead of EVERYTHING being about the next election. I love the idea of limited financing also!

If women ran the country all of our problems could be fixed over lunch!

Actually, I think it's brilliant.

But even before I finished reading, in my mind were popping up all the zillions of ways candidates will find around it.

And, I'm assuming the funds will be coming from the candidates own party, right?

I am not especially well read in the world of politics. I only know what I like. So depending on the many details of this seemingly simple idea, yes, I would likely support it. A cap on money and time spent? Seems kinda, uh......FAIR.

:)

Cheryl,

Without a lot of deep thought, I think most of this is pretty good.
How about abolishing Citizens United, which would quell the superpacs somewhat?

I also agree that eliminating the fundraising dinners would be nice. I don't think that candidates necessarily need to keep hearing their opinions spouted back to them by their own supporters. That time would be better spent doing smaller town hall type discussions, going into communities (not factories, not universities-- communities, where the audience would be broader) and really listening to people's concerns.

I do think a limit on campaign spending would be wonderful. The only bone of contention I have with your plan is the limit of three candidates. If we want to get away from 'the lesser of two evils', we have to allow a broader base of candidates (with three candidates, you end up with the problem we had in 2000, when Nader was considered more of a 'spoiler' than a viable candidate in his own right.). With a broader base, we would be able to hear more ideas than just the two major parties. With more ideas out on the table, this pushes all of the candidates to think longer and harder and to examine their own views-- to think outside their own ideological boxes.

Great question, Cheryl. One of my dearest friends is also on the opposite end of the spectrum politically, and we have some very good, constructive discussions. Civility is a must!

O H-E double hockey sticks. Do you know what the country deficit would do if we put that billion to our debt. Dont donate to the elections lets all donate to our debt so our economy will maybe someday come back. I feel the election should not be based off of money that they can throw around but the kind of people they should be. Sorry I am going to ramble so I am done.

Thanks for the pasionate post I am so with you!

OMG Cheryl, we agree with each other on a political question!

Yes, I would support something similar to what you're saying. We must do something to reign in political contributions and lobbyists. The current dynamic is literally suffocating our democracy.

I would support almost any effort to get the massive amounts of "invisible" money out and shorten the election season.

Now for the depressing part. If you and your liberal friends agree along with probably almost everyone we both know and most of the posters here then this should be a slam dunk. The problem is we've recently gone in the wrong direction with the Citzens United ruling. Corruption has a way of gaining a foothold and not giving in. Lets just hope that foothold isn't as strong as I think it may be.

I like the idea of limiting funding for campaigning, but realistically I don't see how you can limit the time line of campaigns. You would get a lot of candidates elbowing for media attention and saying “I am not campaigning, I just REALLY care about these issues” or some BS like that. And they would also come up with clever ways to get around the funding limits as well. I think that repealing the Citizens United ruling and curtailing the power and anonymity of the Political Action Committees (PACs) would be a more effective strategy at this point. It does disgust me how much money is spent on political campaigns, and for all that money and hoopla candidates still manage to dance around the important issues and speak for hours without ever saying anything of substance, it is a mess indeed.

I am on the other end of the political spectrum from you and would completely support this! It could almost be like a trial run - if you can't figure it out and stick to a budget you wouldn't be able to run.

Great idea!

I would definitely support it.

I would like to see our candidate be able to campaign within a budget. If they are going to budget the rest of the country, they should set an example of how to live within that budget. And if they can't manage a campaign with $2M, then I don't want them in charge of the national treasury.

I also would love for them to stop the bashing. It gets to the point that I won't even listen to what they have to say because I'm so sick of that sort of tactic. Forget the BS and just get on with the issues!

3 or 6 months is still way too long - the rest sounds good.
The UK does it in 6 weeks and 6 weeks is a reasonable amount of time.
I suppose it's over the top unreasonable to have any candidate publicly tortured if they spend one single dime on (or endorse) any robo calls what so ever?

Yes yes yes!! Or give them equal free news time.

No party should be able to buy the presidency.

I agree with you. There should be some limit as to what they can spend so that way we can give more of an oppurtunity to those who are unable to spend more than that. Give the us more choices. And yes, it would be a great test to see how well they are able to manage their campaign on a limited budget. A test to see how they may handle the deficit and the spending.

Cheryl, YES! As you know, I'm as liberal as they come, and I couldn't agree more with you on this. Other countries manage to have productive elections (England comes to mind) with less than two months of campaigning! I think the Citizens United ruling that the Supreme Court handed down pretty much paved the way into hell for our country. We HAVE to get the money out of politics, so our elected officials are working for WE THE PEOPLE again, not for whatever lobbyist can throw the most money at them. I don't agree with the Supreme Court that corporations are people, or that money equals free speech. I completely agree that a system where each candidate gets the same amount of money and the same amount of time in which to campaign is a fair and reasonable system that would solve 95% of the problems we have in this country. We would end up with more third-party candidates, most likely, which would be a good thing (more of the electorate would be well-represented by politicians more closely matching their views). And once elected, politicians would not be so beholden to special interests. Imagine being able to write to your congressperson and having some assurance that they'd actually CARE what you have to say!

Of course, actually implementing this would be difficult, because big business would spend themselves into a tizzy trying to defeat it. They like being able to buy politicians and write their own laws... Does anyone have any concrete ideas how we could accomplish this as everyday citizens??

ooh Cheryl! I bet your lunches are fun!!

Would I support this? Yes. I'm more of a centrist, not so much an Independent and lean more left than right. However, this coming election, I will vote Romney as I don't like what Obama has done to our country (I think that's another topic). And financially, I'm REALLY Conservative.

I would totally be on board with limiting campaign trail times and money spent. How refreshing it would be to have candidates tell us what they plan to do instead of bashing the other person.

How would you start the process?
How many people would get the money and where would the money come from?
How would their money be tracked?
Who would be in charge of their money?

it sounds like I should make a trip out to DC and talk with your friends and you at lunch! This would be a great idea! Now, how to implement it?

I agree. I actually don't understand why, in the Information Age, they have to go all around the country at all. Just stay in one place, televise your debates on all local channels, and tell us what you think. No sound bytes. No slogans. Debate your ideas. Allow the people to interrogate your ideas via real-time teleconference discussions. I don't need to see Mitt Romney or Barack Obama up close and in my face to be able to determine which one of them has better or worse ideas. Half the debate should be the candidate discussing his/her ideas, uninterrupted; then the other half can be contrasting their ideas with their opponent's. No ping-pong debates. That is so childish and lacks decorum.

I agree with this .
But I will say that if you are a sitting president going for re election , they shouldn't really campaign. Your record as president should be able to speak for itself. Instead of spending a year trying to get re elected do you job!

ETA: The bashing that is around NOW is mild to what there used to be lol.

on a side note: I'd love to see Congress take the gloves off like Parliament does.

I am from a country that has public campaign financing and limits on campaign times. I do feel that it is a fairer system.
It results in an election where parties cannot simply outspend each other, so smaller parties have a fair chance of getting their opinion out to the voters and being elected. For example we have a lot of smaller and some relatively new parties (10/20 years old) participating in government.

It also results in a government where parties (big and small) must come together and work out compromises. It diffuses a great liberal/conservative gap if you have some parties representing middle ground.

You can't regulate "bashing or being nasty", but if you have a shorter campaign time and less money to spend, I believe politicians will find out very fast that it is best to concentrate on the issues they stand for, rather than bashing their opponents.

I agree that they should be given limited funds and definitely a limited time to campaign. Obama is coming to "my neck of the woods" today for 2 campaign stops. It is going to screw traffic and everything else up for the entire afternoon. Which is going to be bad enough with the tourists coming and going (not knocking the tourism, but Friday traffic is HORRIBLE). And I am sick to death of all of the smear campaigns/ad from all parties. And the way the media twists what is said or implied makes it even worse.

Some other ideas for discussion....
1---Senators/Congressmen should be like jury duty. Everyone over the age of XX (to be determined) is put in a lottery for a 2 year term. You would have to be screened by a group to make sure that you aren't too extreme either way. ***Note I haven't thought it all the way through, but a starting point

2--Government officials can't vote to increase their own salary. Any salary/benefit increase would take effect the next term. They also have to take whatever they are forcing down our throats (ex: Obamacare. If it gets passed, they and I mean ALL of the government employees (president, vp, senators, congresspeople, cabinet, everyone) have to be on it)

That's all I have for now, but will add when I think of more.

I would support that. I also think that both the House and the Senate should take a huge pay cut and only be aloud to campaign for a month. I'm tired of their posturing and flashy propaganda. I think both sides are.

Sure. Sounds good to me.

I think we should institute the old Athenian lottery system too! We draw names to select candidates, with laws to protect job leave, etc.

Since I'm elderly compared to most of you I often think of the days with no TV and o major spending by traveling around and speeches to bash each other and just wonder how it would be if we just got the beliefs of each put out there, pros and cons, not the massive money spent like you say and just then vote using our minds and hearts and values and morals and not all this hype. We know who we want pretty much anyhow, either side knows who they prefer. I do think the electoral college is awful but guess I must not fully understand it as it's been around for a long long time. I guess I would agree with you without being up on all the reasons some would say it won't work as they do say we need the electoral college. It is a big waste of money, you are right on that.

I do not have the patience to "follow" someone for too long - they tend to become annoying and have nothing new to say as well. I would probably go along with a shorter campaign (6 months) and I agree with budget limitations as well, fewer promises being made and agendas being met. However I do have a question that I do not think was addressed - where would the 2mil come from? Donations as it does now?

I would love to see something like you propose. Also, I would make a rule so that a candidate can only mention being against something when they have an alternative solution so we know what to expect from each candidate.
The only thing would be, I would like to see a cap on $$$, but not have the money come from Tax payers, UNLESS lobbyists are eliminated; or put a cap ($2 Million like you said) from donors and that’s it.
I would also like to see candidates be held accountable for misleading people against the other candidates, like using only a phrase of a speech to reflect something negative about a candidate when that phrase was used to say something totally different.

I don't know if it would work, but I generally do hate to see how much money is wasted on some campaigns. I have actually voted against someone because we got a mailer from them almost every day for weeks.

I would absolutely support this. Shorter election cycle, smaller amount of money spent, clear platforms... that's all great.

Do I think it will ever happen in my lifetime? Unfortunately, no. There are simply too many industries that rely on the current way of electing officials - and they have a lot more money and time to work on this than individual citizens who would benefit.

It does seem like a good idea. Victoria brings up a good point though. Who gets the 2 million? Anyone who wants to run? So early in the process there is sometimes 10-15 people. Or would it be 2 million for the front-runners-so in this election Romney and Obama. I also like the rule on no bashing. After awhile I dont even know what the candidates stand for, I only know what they don't like about the other person! Although I would love a shorter campaign season, I do think 3-6 months would be a little short, some people live under a rock!

Oh yeah, and what Tracy says: Get rid of the electoral college! Makes no sense to me!

Yes - totally agree. I think $2mm is too little given it's a big country but even $5mm is a drop in the hat vs what is spent now. And what gets me is when officials who are already holding office are campaigning all the time, how are they actually getting their jobs done?.. So time limit also seems like a great idea. I don't know anyone who would disagree except perhaps lobbyists and people in the campaign industry.

I would definitely support that, Cheryl! It would be a dream come true if we could get rid of the lobbyists and PACs. I hate how long the election cycle is too. I get that we need to have primaries and such, but it should be within a shorter period of time.

I agree that there should be a cap on spending. I think $2M is high still. All of this hundreds of millions/billions through at advertizing makes me sick. How many starving, homeless, on the edge of foreclosure people could've been helped with that money. Instead it goes into the pockets of the big 4. Makes me sick to think about it.

I also agree that there should be a shorted campaign cycle. Although it that were the case, the John Edward's fiasco wouldn't have been discovered in time.

I also think that there should be more accountability prior and just after the election, but prior to the winning candidate taking office. Just this week, DC has decided that Mayor Gray's campaign from 2010 was riddled with fraudulent issues. Granted all of them by top aides in the campaign. When it's one maybe two I can understand that maybe he didn't know, but now there are 4 or more under indictment. That is just unexcusable.

ABSOLUTELY! They have strict campaign limits (time and $ I believe) in the UK.
I am so tired of people spending their time in office on their re-election. In my opinion it's one of the main reasons why so little is accomplished by an otherwise intelligent body of people. Here in VA, our governor gets 1 term. It's not perfect - we've had several governor's put laws forth that would not be enacted until after they left office (leaving the new administration to deal with budget shortfalls, problems, etc. created by their law). That said, our governors actually WORK while in office b/c they have to prove themselves in order to continue their career in the Senate or whatever office they hope to go to next. Again, not perfect, they are still schmoozing people and all that BS but it's better. TERM LIMITS FOR EVERYONE! Our fore fathers started this country based on working politicians - you were elected and served your country then went back home to WORK. Being a politician was not a job, it was a service, a sacrifice, an honor. Let's get back to that mindset.

In the interest of giving it a fair consideration, who would determine which and how many people can receive the $2 million with which they will campaign for the 3-6 months?

And, in the vein of private PACs, how would you determine (realistically, not on paper) who was spending more? You cannot limit an individuals right to free speech.

oh HELL yeah.
khairete
S.

Hi, Cheryl:

One of the things that is being discussed and proposed is to have the candidates elected from the National convention of each party.
This will save alot of money you are talking about.

Have you seen anything talked about like this in your area?

Good luck.
D.

i think anyone who wants to run should be able to run and that there isnt just one candidate from each party being given all the money to run with. i dont think that candidates should be given a party classification as many vote basd on party alone. i think that bashing or talking about the other person running should be against the rules and grounds for not being able to run in that election. i also dont agree that they need all that money to run. the government can set up several key places where the candidates can speak and say their peice and the rest can be done and paid for bythe tv channels and radio stations that are interested in having them on their shows. way too much time and money is spent on these runnings and we never get the truth or know what is truth to begin with. why waste time and money on lies. maybe we can hook them up to lie detectors during these speeches...lol:)

YES!! And also I'd like to ensure they keep doing their current job and put that as their priority. The last year of a Presidency or any other position shouldn't go unattended because they want to be the next President.

I think it's fair. It is pretty ridiculous what people spend on campaigns and cover ups, while there are so many people starving or struggling to make ends meet. The money could be used for things so much more useful.

my answer is pretty simple,if you cant, or wont prove you were born on united states soil, i am not going to vote for you
K. h.