PCMech Forums - View Single Post - I know I will take alot of flames for this but

troysvihl · 11-21-2000, 07:36 PM

bob - I stand corrected, the splitting of the votes is a state issue not a federal one. I will have to think about this. If it would dilute the small amount of individual state power in the present system, I would be against it. I think the point made by Jessho about the multiple state candidates is a good one.

mafud -

I don't favor any rules that would limit personal freedom.

I don't suport term limits, b/c if there is a decent politician out there, I want to vote for him as many times as possible. And term limits would only stop a person from occupying one position; as the encumbant's term came up, he would simply jump from the state government position to the house representitive position then over to the senate position. Any successful politician could stay in a governmental position for decades doing that.

And I don't support campaign limits (both spending and donation), b/c I see campaign contributions as a form of speech. When I donate to a candidate, I'm simply helping him speak for me.
(BTW, the Supreme Ct has decided that spending limits are violations of free speech, but has ruled that donation limits are OK (unfortunately IMHO))

I seriously doubt that statutory time windows on when a candidate may campaign would fly with the Supreme Court either. Gagging a person from drumming up support would be a flagrant violation of the 1st amendment.

I also don't support "free" TV or radio time. Nothing is free, that would simply force TV/Radio station owners to bear the cost of the air time. I don't think that's very fair to give away another person's property.

Public funding of campaign and money limits only serves encumbants. Encumbants are the ones that already have name recognition and can raise a decent pool of money from many people even if each donor is limited to a set amount. Challengers, on the other hand, usually don't have name recognition and have to get funding from a small group of people. So if there are individual donation limits, guess who comes out with a much larger cash pool? That's right, encumbants. By drying up any decent means of collecting funds from a small group of people, you effectively ensure an encumbant's reelection. Public funding also ensures that third party candidates can't compete on local leves b/c they usually don't qualify for funding while their competitor does. Public funding rules are written by encumbants and are just a bad idea.

If I had my way, I would repeal all election law. Most of the "problem" with soft money stems from the last set of election laws that were past. (I don't really see soft money as a problem; just a bunch of hype IMHO)

Back in the day, before donation limits, pretty much anyone could run a decent campaign for president. All they had to do was get a half dozen or so rich buddies to fund it. Now, that doesn't occur, and we have a smaller pool of candidates bringing up fewer issues.

Beware any polician that talks of these and other campaign finance "reform." He's simply milking an ideaologically bankrupt vote-cow. He know's it will get him votes cause it sounds good to the constituents and at the same time will ensure his stay in power.

[Edited by troysvihl on 11-21-2000 at 09:42 PM]

11-21-2000, 07:36 PM	#29
troysvihl Member (11 bit) Join Date: Nov 1999 Posts: 1,606	bob - I stand corrected, the splitting of the votes is a state issue not a federal one. I will have to think about this. If it would dilute the small amount of individual state power in the present system, I would be against it. I think the point made by Jessho about the multiple state candidates is a good one. mafud - I don't favor any rules that would limit personal freedom. I don't suport term limits, b/c if there is a decent politician out there, I want to vote for him as many times as possible. And term limits would only stop a person from occupying one position; as the encumbant's term came up, he would simply jump from the state government position to the house representitive position then over to the senate position. Any successful politician could stay in a governmental position for decades doing that. And I don't support campaign limits (both spending and donation), b/c I see campaign contributions as a form of speech. When I donate to a candidate, I'm simply helping him speak for me. (BTW, the Supreme Ct has decided that spending limits are violations of free speech, but has ruled that donation limits are OK (unfortunately IMHO)) I seriously doubt that statutory time windows on when a candidate may campaign would fly with the Supreme Court either. Gagging a person from drumming up support would be a flagrant violation of the 1st amendment. I also don't support "free" TV or radio time. Nothing is free, that would simply force TV/Radio station owners to bear the cost of the air time. I don't think that's very fair to give away another person's property. Public funding of campaign and money limits only serves encumbants. Encumbants are the ones that already have name recognition and can raise a decent pool of money from many people even if each donor is limited to a set amount. Challengers, on the other hand, usually don't have name recognition and have to get funding from a small group of people. So if there are individual donation limits, guess who comes out with a much larger cash pool? That's right, encumbants. By drying up any decent means of collecting funds from a small group of people, you effectively ensure an encumbant's reelection. Public funding also ensures that third party candidates can't compete on local leves b/c they usually don't qualify for funding while their competitor does. Public funding rules are written by encumbants and are just a bad idea. If I had my way, I would repeal all election law. Most of the "problem" with soft money stems from the last set of election laws that were past. (I don't really see soft money as a problem; just a bunch of hype IMHO) Back in the day, before donation limits, pretty much anyone could run a decent campaign for president. All they had to do was get a half dozen or so rich buddies to fund it. Now, that doesn't occur, and we have a smaller pool of candidates bringing up fewer issues. Beware any polician that talks of these and other campaign finance "reform." He's simply milking an ideaologically bankrupt vote-cow. He know's it will get him votes cause it sounds good to the constituents and at the same time will ensure his stay in power. [Edited by troysvihl on 11-21-2000 at 09:42 PM]