Unrestricted sums of money given to political candidates cannot be considered free speech if the ability to speak in the same manner and level of access of the majority of citizens is impossible, and the unaffordable speech of the masses attempting to express ideas is made valueless to our candidates and irrelevant. This is not freedom despite the warped perspective of Republican dispensers of empty and non reasonable rhetoric and evidence less economic hypothesis. It is the legal corruption of the tool of democracy. It is definitely a form of oppression of the masses. Now all the masses of the United States have left is their anger, their ideology, their philosophies. Precious things thought to be protected by the first amendment, thought so by James Madison when he wrote it. Money and it's spending in political campaigns was not a concern of the founders, read on.
It is time we give something kind to the American voter which also ensures democracy as a sound government structure we can all trust, for the first time in our history. It is time that every vote really did count - but not just every vote, every person whether he or she chooses to vote or not. A thing the founders never thought would be necessary.
The founders were men who foresaw that only white land owning and merchant men would be voting and that campaign funding would never be an issue due to it's largesse because that scenario was unfortunately, not conceived of. Because, campaigning at the time involved free activities like letter writing to newspapers, speaking publicly and so forth. Our constitution lacks the following seemingly as if by purpose but more likely due to eighteenth century ignorance and an innocent narrow view (normal for it's time) of what the future might be: no mention of any limits or ceilings on campaign money that could be raised by candidates and sitting politicians. No mentions of who or what controls that purse/bank. No restrictions of from who, from what interests, from conflicting interests. No mention of who keeps the money after a campaign. This absence must have been noticed when a conservative Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative for Citizens United vs. the United States.The Super Pacs now born of that decision will make democracy further and further from representative to us all. A point not understood by the conservative court.
We have proven beyond a doubt that our current electoral
campaign finance system mostly does not work for anyone but the wealthy. This
inequity is why United States
representative democracy has never truly been in place. If you think that
historically what works well for the wealthy, works well for you in the long
run, then you may not agree with this solution.
The route to Public Campaign Financing has to be a new
Constitutional Amendment, because obviously Constitutional amendments are not
ruled unconstitutional except by another amendment.
The anger and disappointment over our Supreme Courts'
decision in Citizens United verses the United
States, is swelling the ranks of democratic
activists and unifying them toward a goal of a Constitutional Amendment to
repeal Citizens' United. I say whoa.
Citizens United is horrible, but lets use this opportunity to both fix Citizens
United and correct something long over due that will reap benefits for
democracy well beyond just the repeal of Citizens United. Public Campaign
Financing would remove the target for every corporation and superpac benefiting
from Citizens United. Many democracies around the world are succeeding using
their own form of Public Campaign Financing. There have been several periods of
time in our recent political history where Public Campaign Financing was
offered by many people as a solution to the corruption and misrepresentation
and under representation that occurs constantly under our current system of
campaign financing. The call for Public Campaign Financing is so old it is
almost traditional American rhetoric.
"The greatest moral question which now confronts us is: Shall the
trusts and corporations be prevented from contributing money to control or aid
in controlling elections?"
-Defeated
Presidential candidate Judge Alton Parker, 1904.
I support overturning Citizens United - and it's underlying
warped philosophy that corporations are people. But it is foolish to NOT make
use of the huge energy and anger in all political parties currently to finally
create Public Campaign Financing, which would cause Citizens United to become
MOOT and introduce full representative democracy where over 100 million non voting
eligible citizens finally become represented. The advantages of PCF are
numerous and the arguments against these advantages are very hard to make. The
whole proposal for PCF makes so much logical sense it makes the effort to
introduce a constitutional amendment to defeat Citizens United look trivial in
comparison.
Candidate campaigning has been tainted by the dollars of the
few wealthy over the interests of the poorer many since our inception. I don't
need to mention examples of the corruption, the resulting absence of representation,
the conflicts of our interest created by massive dollar amount campaigns. I
won't mention the many examples of decades of fighting against large money
donors to get our congress to do something, anything. I don't need to mention
that after that fight, when we think we are about to get something with all of
our interests in mind, that we get watered down half measures of legislation that
are partially representative of us all.
Nearly 50% of our federal representatives, 261 members of
Congress, are millionaires. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023147-503544.html Among us the numbers of millionaires are 3 - 4%. The first priority on their
first day as elected representatives is to start raising money to get
re-elected. A US
Senator from a rural state will have to raise on average $20,000 per week once
elected to prepare for re-election. That Senator will have to ration his time
for meetings with those most able to re-elect him, not time finding solutions
to our problems. Our two presidential candidates will spend nearly $1 billion
on this election, up hundreds of millions of dollars from the last general
election.
How much are we spending on elections? From Ryan Borek,
Executive Director, Take A Stand PAC: "In 2010, researchers believe
approximately $4 Billion was spent on the midterm election. 2008's Presidential
Election cost over $1.7 Billion not including other elections, and likely
topped over $5 Billion. The off years such as 2009 tend to lag significantly
behind at around $2 Billion. The average US Senate race costs around $4-7
Million, with the average US House race costing $2-6 Million. State elections
cost significantly less, usually around $500,000. Local elections can cost as little
as $5,000 depending mostly on filing fees. It is difficult to ascertain exact
costs as the system is not designed to keep track of state or local spending in
any central location. You can find the exact spending for any single federal
candidate at FEC.gov, however you
would need to contact each individual state's election office to find the
spending on a state or local candidate."
Per person based on current population and the above
estimate of $5 bilion per year, a standard General Election would cost
approximately $15.87 each. Who would not be willing to pay $16 per year to
better ensure real representation for all of us, without conflicts of interest,
without corruption of our elected officials?
In the ruling of the Supreme Court in the now famous "Citizens
United," corporations were given the status of an individual in the
practice of petitioning government their grievances and exercising free-speech.
Essentially in the invisible center of every corporation lies a being, a being
that pays taxes and wants legislation that favors them, as if they were
individuals with unalienable rights like us.
This interpretation of free speech and who or what can participate
monetarily in our elections was greatly damaging to representation in that it
tipped the scales even more toward more robust representation of those of
greatest means. It was not enough that the entire executive board of a
corporation is entitled to use free speech and vote their minds as individuals,
now an invisible new being in the middle of the conference table is able to
pool its larger amount of resources and out-bark the general populace or any
target population they may, thereby manipulating all of our futures
unrepresentatively.
Enter the only best answer: the 100% public financing of
every electoral campaign in the United States of
America. Below is educated speculation of what
happens after Constitutional Amendment number twenty-eight that mandates this
change, has gone into effect:
1. With literally no more purse for the coinage of the
lobbyists to be dropped into at our elected representatives offices, the
lobbyists for corporations and unions and smaller governments get real jobs in
the private industry and vanish in one day from Capital Hill never to be seen
again, so long as the 28th Amendment is the law of the land. Citizens United
and all other rules as they pertain to corporations or any lobby, will matter
no more because all campaign material and money must come from the public fund
only, and gifts to our representatives and candidates will remain illegal.
 |
I explained to Tuvok as best as I could (in dog spkeak)
the methodology of our current campaign
financing system, but all I could get
from him was "dog bone." So there it is,
Public Campaign Financing will definitely
lead to increased dog bones. Because when
working people are finally represented fairly,
wages will rise to meet the needs of every family,
and increased packages of dog bones will be purchased. |
Some lobbyists find a job in a related field practicing an
American tradition: marching around all day outdoors in front of the capital
building carrying protest signs advertising slogans about issues. No wooden
handles allowed guys! Stay within the yellow tape please!
2. Do the corporations or the unions still have free speech,
representation, the ability to give money toward campaigns? Yes of course! The
public fund for electoral campaigns is also contributed to from corporations
made of individuals who pay a flat rate toward the public campaign fund, just
like the citizen who pays the same exact rate who may own a small house right-next-door
to the multi-billion dollar corporation. If a corporation is a person and that
person is entitled to the free speech act of giving to a political campaign,
then under Public Campaign Financing that person/corporation has given, with
taxes, toward the political campaign, just like every body else under the new
28th Amendment.
This is a new shared representation in free speech ability
the nation has never known. The "individualist" corporations'
argument will then have to be "we have more money so we want to be able to
give more money because we are more important to the nation than the little
people!" And perhaps "This is not unfair to the great majority
of the population!" Opinions that will be hidden from us and that the
public would find distasteful.
3. Equal campaign funding for equal candidates everywhere.
Knowing that your competition has not one more dollar than you do to spend on the
campaign, makes the issues and your position on them far more important than ever
before in determining a winner. As a representative you won't know who to
support more on any one issue unless you delve into your constituency for real
information on the issues. Information you then use without influence in
dollars, while keeping in mind that it's your stand on the issues that will get
you re-elected.
4. Equal political air-time. The media will have to abide by
the rules just like individuals. They can not use outside funding for any
political propaganda unless it is from the Public Campaign Fund. And they can
not get that money until campaign time. Like Great
Britain we have restricted the number of calendar
days before the election in which television and radio and newspaper
advertising can be displayed by anyone in favor of in opposition to a campaign or
an issue of political purpose. Perhaps 60 days prior to election. When the
millionaires' public relations manager calls the television network to try to
gain advantage in an election, the manager would tell him or her "Sorry
but you can't advertise for a political issue or a candidate until September
4th of this year and then you'll have to prove your money comes from the Public
Campaign Fund. My hands are tied by the 28th Amendment. If you like we can
interview you at any time, but your opposition gets an interview also."
Is it not time for the frenzied race to the top of Capital
Hill lead by the wealthiest to end? How much more evidence needs to pile-up for
us all to admit the system as we know it, as it's structured, does not work?
The Founders did not imagine our present could become this bad, I'm sure. We
are not the few land owner, white, businessmen voters and congressmen the
framers did imagine, any longer. In attempting to fix our electoral system few
if any better solutions exist. Any answer must eliminate the power of the
big-money contributors and return our nation to the people.
But this seems unconstitutional! . . .
Keep in mind successful Constitutional amendments are not ruled
unconstitutional except by another amendment. The purpose of the First Amendment is not damaged by Public Campaign Financing.
The goal of representative democracy is shared and more fairly distributed,
rendering the
political speech concept of our free speech more
representative and so more powerful than before.
If public funding of election campaigns is somehow unconstitutional then
since 1976 checking a box on your income tax return that gives $1-2 to the
Presidential Election Campaign Fund, is also unconstitutional. Because that is
nothing more than what Public Campaign Financing does, it's
our government
managing and collecting a fund for election campaigns specifically. So,
prove that philosophy
unconstitutional.
Please post critical and constructive criticism in the
comments section below. I will try to answer every question.
Thank you. Grace on the United
States.
