http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6925824440690771351&postID=5437122576727404560
We have already established that there are numerous problems with the way our government campaign finances work. But what can be done to solve the issues? This is more complicated then it may seem and there are various solutions that could work. But, that in itself is a problematic situation because even though some ideas seem that they would work it can not be sure until tested which could lead to even more corruption. Also, it is very difficult to reform financing because of Constitutionality. Since the Navy Appropriations Bill of 1867 there have been less than 20 bills, acts, and Supreme Court Cases that have successfully been passed regaurding finance reform. Most people don't care to clean up the system though because they believe that there will always be loopholes to find and new legislation won't be effective. The solution is relatively simple "Clean Money Clean Elections" also known as CMCE. Each candidate will go through a qualifying round in which they will raise small dollar donations. And, once they reach a certain amount they will go to the federal government and sign a contract saying that they will only federal funds and won't raise money any other way. The government then gives them a certain amount to use. If the contract is broken then they will be charged with a huge bill. This is a Constitu
tional act because it won't be mandatory to participate; it will be optional. Candidates will choose to participate in this system though because they will save time and be able to focus on their campaign rather than raising money. Candidates will be pressured to particpate in this also by not wanting to be have bad publicity as being owned by private groups. Government can give an alotted time for television airing for free which is another beneficial advantage candidates that agree to the CMCE system. This system will work as long as a log of what candidates spend their money on and other transactions are kept. On the state level this system has been tried by Maine and Arizona and it has been very successful and given candidates more time to campaign.
tional act because it won't be mandatory to participate; it will be optional. Candidates will choose to participate in this system though because they will save time and be able to focus on their campaign rather than raising money. Candidates will be pressured to particpate in this also by not wanting to be have bad publicity as being owned by private groups. Government can give an alotted time for television airing for free which is another beneficial advantage candidates that agree to the CMCE system. This system will work as long as a log of what candidates spend their money on and other transactions are kept. On the state level this system has been tried by Maine and Arizona and it has been very successful and given candidates more time to campaign.Although the CMCE system would be effective it most likely won't get passed. So, for now our current system has loopholes that need to be closed. As soon as a person has donated the amount that they are allowed they should not be able to advertise and aid in rasing additional funds. This of course includes that those who have given money shouldn't be allowed to raise "soft money" funds either. Soft money is yet another issue that needs to be addressed. There should be a certain amount of time that soft money can be given to candidates and prohibiting soft money from being used in federal to state activities. This would not allow soft money to go to candidates from people that already donated to their campaigns and keep interest groups (PACS, etc.) from holding so much power.
Sources:
Washington Post
Open Secrets
The CMCE system sounds plausible, but kind of contradictory. It saves them time, but you said it was optional. So limiting the money and such does not really put forth a barrier for canidates. I agree with you on closing the current loopholes we have in our system completely. However, I thought soft money was already illegal?
ReplyDelete