Would we have a more efficient government if we had a low maximum set on allowed donations to campaigns? The amount I am thinking is around $20.00.

[Darius11 12]

My idea is to limit the amount a single entity can contribute to any campaign. That means people, and corporations can not donate more then $20.00 dollars even if they wanted too donate much more.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Andy9o8 2]

A popular idea, but there are certain end-runs around this, each of which already occur:
1) Wealthy candidates can fund their own campaigns. Disallowing this might be an unconstitutional restriction on how a person can spend his own money to express himself under the First Amendment.
2) Campaigns - or candidates themselves - can borrow money, as long as it's a bona fide loan that must be re-paid. Restricting this might also run into Constitutional hurdles.
3) Third parties - whether they be "political action committees" or whatever - can run millions of dollars on "issue ads" that need not necessarily mention any candidate (pro or con) by name, but only mention certain "issues." Restricting this? Again, possibly unconstitutional - people have the right to express themselves, and they have the right to fund the means to do so, otherwise we run afoul of the First Amendment.

[Glitch 0]

How about we start with:
1) Drug test everyone in office on a regular basis
2) Limit salaries/benefits received in office to the 'average of their constituancy'.
3) Hold office holders accountable for the decisions they make.

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

How about we start with:
1) Drug test everyone in office on a regular basis

Why not? They do it in the private sector. Heck, lots of public sector jobs get that, too.

Quote

2) Limit salaries/benefits received in office to the 'average of their constituency'.

Wouldn't be equitable, to the extent that, for example, 2 different members of the same legislature might have widely divergent salaries. As it is, office holders almost always have a residency requirement. Also not practically workable: there'd be battles over how to calculate the "average"; the litigation would be endless. (Not that that alone is necessarily a deal-breaker! )

Quote

3) Hold office holders accountable for the decisions they make.

How do you propose to do that in a way that's not already done in most democratic republics? AS it is, office-holders have finite terms of office, with re-election subject to the voters, if not already term-limited. Have greater independent financial oversight to prevent corruption? Sure, but that has to be paid for, either with taxes or by bleeding off somebody's pet project.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

3) Third parties - whether they be "political action committees" or whatever - can run millions of dollars on "issue ads" that need not necessarily mention any candidate (pro or con) by name, but only mention certain "issues." Restricting this? Again, possibly unconstitutional - people have the right to express themselves, and they have the right to fund the means to do so, otherwise we run afoul of the First Amendment.

Yes, the key problem is this sort of bullshit runs against the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the court did see some way to uphold McCain-Feingold.

Darius, that sort of limitation would have hurt Obama much more than it would hurt big business McCain or any self moneyed candidate like Perot. Are you sure that is a positive?

[Gawain 0]

This all went to some crazy weird shit when McCain-Feingold passed...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

A popular idea, but there are certain end-runs around this, each of which already occur:
1) Wealthy candidates can fund their own campaigns. Disallowing this might be an unconstitutional restriction on how a person can spend his own money to express himself under the First Amendment.
2) Campaigns - or candidates themselves - can borrow money, as long as it's a bona fide loan that must be re-paid. Restricting this might also run into Constitutional hurdles.
3) Third parties - whether they be "political action committees" or whatever - can run millions of dollars on "issue ads" that need not necessarily mention any candidate (pro or con) by name, but only mention certain "issues." Restricting this? Again, possibly unconstitutional - people have the right to express themselves, and they have the right to fund the means to do so, otherwise we run afoul of the First Amendment.

4) More time spent getting free publicity from our corporate media by going on their shows. I'm not a big fan of giving even more power to the media who have already shown themselves to be largely incompetent in basic reporting skills and/or biased in one direction or the other.