-It would lower the barrier to entry for anyone considering a political career, that means you. Yes, you!

-Legislators would have more time to dedicate to their jobs, legislating, rather than following the PAC.

-It would depress the political fundraising industry and assorted barnicles on the ship of state.

-Politicians need to stop hob-nobbing with people who can afford to drop $500 plus on lunch with a photo op; most of their constituents can’t even buy their month’s groceries for that amount.

-A side benefit could be the price of skyboxes at sporting events could plunge to the level of reasonable.

-Yet another effect could be that poiticians chase votes instead of money, but hey, that’s pie-in-the-sky shit…

It comes down to how the rules are written. For sure, history teaches us that human ingenuity will find a loophole and exploit it. Because, in my view, the world’s oldest occupation is politician.

While I agree that more government isn’t necessarily better gov’t, we need to start appreciating that there are some things a federal gov’t can do really well and this might be one of them. However, it would be beneficial first to remove several of the services that gov’t doesn’t do very well to make up for budget increases that would certainly be necessary to finance campaigns. Still though, on the media side, I think a lot of graft could be removed from that side of it were the gov’t to just reimpose it’s earlier agreements with the networks.

The ability to be influenced by cash is in the heart and soul of the Congressman, not the bills in the sack.

The job must be more of a public service job, and less of a ticket to paradise.

Suspicion of bribery or corruption leads to an instant opportunity to resign, losing all benefits. If you don’t take that opportunity than you run the risk of the full weight of the law.

From Arianna Huffington’s column today: “[r]aising CAFE standards should be a no-brainer. It’s the fastest and most efficient way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But automakers are fighting progress tooth and nail. And they are getting help from a group of lawmakers that includes Michigan’s two Democratic Senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, who are giving in to the lobbyists and special interests that have defined Washington for decades.”

Kinda says it all, for me.

Public financing can help reduce the favour buying. Not completely, but it helps. It also makes it more likely that a small candidate can run and have a chance.

Part of the reason why elections are so expensive is the advertising. Pass a law that requires N hours of prime time TV, or N pages in the local newspaper, to be made available free of charge to each candidate/party in an area during the declared campaign season and most of the reasons for huge amounts of money goes away.

The cost to taxpayers of the savings and loan scandal would be enough to publicly fund election campaigns for centuries.

Why should get Senators and Congressmen get outrageous salaries for working less days than a school teacher?

Why should they get a 100% pension, no matter how many terms they serve?

Free medical care at Bethesda for life?

Make the job more like public service and less like instant celebrity, and you’ll see a different kind of person running for office, and a different kind of campaign.

Here are some rules:

Pension:

10% of your final pay, for each term you served.

Medical care: 10% free, for every term you have served,

Salary: The same as the national median for the member’s or President’s family size. When “the country gets a raise”, the Senator, congressman, or President gets a raise.

Being a politician shouldn’t entitle you to “giraffe money“

How about freedom.

http://www.elections.org.nz/

1. As some have mentioned, our tax dollars already pay for all sorts of political speech we don’t agree with. That’s normal in a democracy that respects freedom of speech. The issue I submit is not whether some candidates we don’t agree with would recieve financing along with those we do agree with; the issue is whose interests are they going to represent if elected, which depends on where the money come from. If it comes from wealthy private groups and individuals, then they will have the lion’s share of the influence. If it comes from an impartial public source, then “we the people” will have the most influence. Clean Money is not about regulating or censoring any particular speech; it’s about expanding that freedom to all qualified candidates (not just the ones chosen by big money) and insuring the accountability of our public officials to voters instead of big donors, no matter what political party they’re from.

2. Public financing systems have to be voluntary in order to be Constitutional (Buckley v Valeo, 1976), but 527 groups and privately funded candidates who might try to outspend a “Clean Money” candidate can be and are very effectively neutralized by having what’s called “matching funds” or “fair fight funds” as part of the public financing system. Current systems operating successfully in Arizona and Maine for almost a decade have these provisions. What happens is that if a 527 or privately funded candidate tries to outspend a Clean Money candidate, the Clean Money candidate gets additional matching funds (up to a cap so we don’t break the bank), which does two things: it helps keep the playing field level so the Clean Money candidate can be competitive, and it discourages those 527’s and privately funded candidates from over spending (because they realize that every excess dollar they spend just triggers matching funds for their Clean Money opponent).

3. Public financing is incredibly inexpensive: about $6.00 a year per voter (a cup of coffee and a muffin) would finance all Congressional elections for both houses. That’s about 2 billion total. By contrast, the earmarks pushed through the Congress on behalf of the special interest groups who currently fund campaigns came to 64 billion in 2006 alone…to say nothing of what we spend on the most expensive special interest of all, the military-industrial complex (over 500 billion in 2006). Bottom line: Clean Money would save taxpayers 10’s if not hundreds of billions every year. We literally can’t aford not to do it

To sum up, Clean Money has already been tested and proven to work, it’s already been ruled constitutional, and it pays for itself many times over. (For additional non-partisan info see http://www.just6dollars.org or http://www.publicampaign.org or http://www.CAclean.org).

I’m very much concerned about the eternal campaign cycle and the concomitant eternal money chase. This is a nice intellectual exercise but I doubt that the situation will change anytime soon. The business/political machine is so much invested in gaming the status quo that any system that removed the influence of campaign contributions from politics would be declared un-American by both parties.

As it is, most members of congress have to be wealthy in order to be elected in the first place. Greater democratic choice, and having to be more responsive to ordinary citizens, not beholden to corporations: two good reasons for public financing.

1. Limiting the campaign season to the six months leading up to the election.

As incumbents, current officeholders will be able to use the tools at their disposal to “campaign” without actually breaking laws. (Photo ops, Town Halls, etc.) Besides, we all know that candidates will be doing the same amount of fundraising, only telling their doners “Don’t send the check now. Send it in 12 months…”

3. 527’s are welcome to produce all of the advocacy ads they want (Within the six month window.) but they must also pay for an equal amount of ads in the same media markets espousing the opposing view.

You’ll NEVER get 527’s to go along with this. Plus, you’re forcing groups to spend ads to promote ideas they don’t agree with. It doesn’t sound like it passes the Constitutionality test.

4. Television and radio outlets to provide each candidate with equal blocks of time as a public service.

That’s a law on the books now. But media outlets get around it by calling it “news”, thus not subject to equal-time restrictions.

1. Legislators spend all their time campaigning for re-election, especially in the House.

2. Money talks. Those with big money like corporations and unions and the rich talk the loudest.

3. Lobbyists and special interests argue that their freedom of speech rights and freedom of petition rights are infringed by amy attempt at regulation.

ANSWERS:

1. Term changes: To 4 yrs in the House.

2. Term Limits: 3 terms for the House, 2 terms in the Senate.

3. Public funding, as Paul Begala wrote:

The incumbent is GUARANTEED in public funds whatever the challenger raises. Incumbent may not use his own funds nor accept any but the smallest campaign gifts nor contributions.

4. Money raised by 527’s, 503(c)’s, and all PAC’s on behalf of challengers, as well as challengers’ own funds are matched dollar-for-dollar out of a General Election fund and given to incumbent.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html

1) Repeal the 12th Amendment

2) Revisit the 17th Amendment

3) Revisit the 25th Amendment

4) Propose a 28th Amendment

No candidate for the Congress, the Senate, or the Presidency, shall use funds, materiel, or personnel from ANY public office or agency {this subsumes the Hatch Act and nationalizes it} to support his or her candidacy.