I watched the Lessig video and he made 3 points, 2 of which I agree with. (1) Campaign Contributions should only come from individuals. Not from Corps or PACs. (Totally agree)
(2) Earmarks should be eliminated. (Awesome, totally with you.) (3) Political Campaigns should be publicly funded by the government. (Ok, you lost me on this one.)
You will never eliminate money from political campaigns. If campaign funding only comes from the government, that only limits what the candidates can spend. It doesn't limit how much money their friends, groups of friends, or groups of supporters can spend. Campaign's would just shift to organizing 3rd party groups to run ads, etc... Unless of course you want to limit the ability of 3rd parties to run ads, which is an attack on free speech in my opinion.
The problem is not the money, its the lack of openness. People can pour huge sums of money into PACs, 507s, you name it. This makes it very difficult to figure out where the money is coming from and who is pulling the strings. Elections need to be open, like software. The rules should be simple.
(1) Only individuals can make contributions. (2) All contributions must be in the public record and freely available. (3) No limit on contributions or very high limits (e.g., $1 Million per person)
At least this way if Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or Rupert Murdoch is funding a candidate, you know that up front. Its up to you to decide if that is groovy or bovine feces.
Slashdot Mirror
I watched the Lessig video and he made 3 points, 2 of which I agree with.
(1) Campaign Contributions should only come from individuals. Not from Corps or PACs. (Totally agree)
(2) Earmarks should be eliminated. (Awesome, totally with you.)
(3) Political Campaigns should be publicly funded by the government. (Ok, you lost me on this one.)
You will never eliminate money from political campaigns. If campaign funding only comes from the government, that only limits what the candidates can spend. It doesn't limit how much money their friends, groups of friends, or groups of supporters can spend. Campaign's would just shift to organizing 3rd party groups to run ads, etc... Unless of course you want to limit the ability of 3rd parties to run ads, which is an attack on free speech in my opinion.
The problem is not the money, its the lack of openness. People can pour huge sums of money into PACs, 507s, you name it. This makes it very difficult to figure out where the money is coming from and who is pulling the strings. Elections need to be open, like software. The rules should be simple.
(1) Only individuals can make contributions.
(2) All contributions must be in the public record and freely available.
(3) No limit on contributions or very high limits (e.g., $1 Million per person)
At least this way if Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or Rupert Murdoch is funding a candidate, you know that up front. Its up to you to decide if that is groovy or bovine feces.