[Mafud]

[QUOTE][i]
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."

Th so-called "founding fathers" beleived in term limits. They nearly universally thought legislators were first citizens who would give up a season or two of tobacco, corn, etc. production to serve their state/nation. They NEVER intended, nor foresaw, a Strom Thurmod, serving into their 96?th year.

A Congress made up of citizen legislators is what Gingrich and the Republicans told us we were getting in the 1994 "revolution."
Yeah, right! They and their "revolution" turned out to be the same kind of low-life political scum-buckets as the rest of them.
All of them need to leave.

As to personal "favors" from your state or federal politicians: those who get the favors are tied tighter to the feeding teat than the little guy who gets zip.

A little "True" tax relief is all we all want. Beyond that, sucking up to politicians for favors makes a person wallow with dogs. The results? They'll get up with fleas.

"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."

An honest, "citizen" politician would serve out his elected term and go home. Dishonest sleaze-balls will continue to grovel at the federal/state/local governemnt feeding teat. Scuz-balls all.
Any "Citizen", politician or not, when called to serve by his/her goventment, should serve, but with the clear intent when the commissioned job is finished, s/he would get a hearty "well done" from his/her government, and if they were deprived of earning a living while serving, a small pension should be set aside for them. But they would skdaddle out of office,no matter what.
While surely not the ideal "citizen servant" model, Benjamin Franklin in some way epitomizes the "citizen" servant ideal of the founding fathers.
Serve, then go home and play with a kite.
Any politican, no matter who or at what level, who stays around for 40 years is a goverment teat sucking parasite, whose entire reason for being is to stay stuck to the goverment teat. Any person who has worked for government for 20, 30, 40 years, or has never held a job in public commerce of some kind, has NO blooming idea of what people want or even what the country want or needs.
The only thing they know is what they and THEIR constituents want: mor govenrment money in their pockets, nothing for the people.

"And I don't support campaign limits (both spending and donation), b/c I see campaign contributions as a form of speech."

That is flat out Republican Party propaganda.

"When I donate to a candidate, I'm simply helping him speak for me."

OK, but what does he ever say FOR you? If he is Democrat, he'll say what he think his Democratic constiuents want to hear. REpublican the same. Is that what you mean? Having some SOB giving you his "pull my string, I'll say anything you want" Parrot speech to you? Of course not.

"(BTW, the Supreme Ct has decided that spending limits are violations of free speech, but has ruled that donation limits are OK"

That ruling was the broadest possible application of the law. The law was intially designed to say:
"Any candidate may spend as much (of their own) money to get elected," not how the Supreme Court ruled.

"I seriously doubt that statutory time windows on when a candidate may campaign would fly with the Supreme Court either."

It is one thing I admire about the British: a candidate for Prime Minister or the House of Commons has only a finite number of days to campaign, then they hold an election, best or most convincing candidate wins. End of campaign.
No George "Dubya" Bushes who began his presidential campaign ever before he declared for Governor.

"Gagging a person from drumming up support would be a flagrant violation of the 1st amendment."

Nahh. More REpublican speak. Getting everyone off on the same foot at the same time makes it more fair, not less, especially for underfunded third party candidates, whom may be exactly the candidate we all want and need, if he or shecould only be heard.
Besides, what you said is straight out of the NRA "How to talk politics" (and put down Democrats)handbook.
*Have you noticed absolutely no one, in the NRA, not even Heston, has had an original thought in 27 years?
Talk about Parrots!

"I also don't support "free" TV or radio time. Nothing is free,"

The govenrment, instead of giving money to the candidates, would divide monies up between the major media outlets.
*And haven't you heard of "Public service" time?
*"Public service" broadcasting is whole dollar deductable to those who participate. That means a network would get to deduct the whole dollar value of the donated time right off the top of their gross income, then deduct it again as a charitable gift. So tell me, how can they lose? 1 for 1 deduction and another percentage of their net income lopped off to boot.

"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."

Ehhhkh! The "Airwaves" belong to the public: get it?
PUBLIC Airtime? It does not belong to them. Besides, any time they so-called "lost" broadcsting presidential candidates is again, whole dollar deductable.
But you knew that; right?

"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."

Go back and read what I posted. Campaign finance reform must happen first. Your point about encumbents makes my other point: term limits and no sandbagging contributions. *When they leave office, whether voted out or end of term, and since their "war chests" were contributions given to them for their campaigns, their "war chests" belong not to them but to the people.

"Challengers, on the other hand, usually don't have name recognition and have to get funding from a small group of people."

Challengers would come in with a more even footing if encumbents had to observe term limits and campaign finance reform. Dang, don't you get it?

"So if there are individual donation limits, guess who comes out with a much larger cash pool? That's right, encumbants."

See: term limits.

"By drying up any decent means of collecting funds from a small group of people, you effectively ensure an encumbant's reelection."

See: term limits.

"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."

Absolutely correct UNDER PRESENT RULES.
See: campaign finance reform.

"Public funding rules are written by encumbants and are just a bad idea."

See: term limits.

"If I had my way, I would repeal all election law."

That would leave us in a state where within 15-20 years, only the rich would, or could*** hold office. Every one else would be flunkies of a government that would be no better than that of a Third World "Banana Republic", Argentina comes quickly to mind but there are others.
***The next presidential campaign has already been scaled at $450 to $600 million for the two major party candidates alone. Throw in Congressional election spending and the tab might break $2 BILLION.
****One sucessful Democrat spent $65 MILLION of his OWN money (he won). That is obscene.

"Most of the "problem" with soft money stems from the last set of election laws that were past."

More than BILLION dollars in "soft" money was spent this presidential and Congressional election. That much "soft" money is corruption in itself.
"Soft money" = corruption.

"(I don't really see soft money as a problem; just a bunch of hype IMHO)"

That $1.2 BILLION in "soft" money spent this election ain't no "hype", it's real money and it has bought real influence for those who spent it. And your local poltician, the one you trust to "speak" for you? Who the HOO do you think he'll vote for: a corporation (like privately held multi-multi-Billion dollar Koch Indutries), who themselves may have popped as much as $185 million dollars on their favorite candidates, including your local yokel, Democrats and Republicans, all across the country?
Yeah, he'll speak for you all right, when hell freezes over.

"Back in the day, before donation limits, pretty much anyone could run a decent campaign for president."

Yean that was when politicans chose presidents instead of corporations. But back then, all the politicians knew the people, the candidates and the local needs that needed to be addressed.

"All they had to do was get a half dozen or so rich buddies to fund it."

A strictly Republican means of finding a candidate they can support, then pump the money in ala George "Dubya" Bush, a man who outright bought the Republican nomination (and the Texas Governor's) nomination too.
Simply outbid his competition.
*The Republicans had two (maybe three) national candidates who would have kicked Gore's ass once an day and twice on Sundays, drug him kicking and screaming like a little sniveling girly-man out to the ash-heap of life and then thrown him up on it.
Instead, the by now "stupid" big Republican money bought that wuss Bush, who by all rights should have kicked Gore's ass by 700,000 votes in his brother's home state.
But that wussy Bush couldn't and now look at th fine mess we have!

"Now, that doesn't occur, and we have a smaller pool of candidates bringing up fewer issues."

Nahh. We had more than 14 third party presidential candidates who spoke on everything the Amerian voter wanted to hear, including old wussy Nader himself, who, no matter whether you like him or not, has some damn fine ideas.

"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."

See: term limits:
See: campaign finance reform, my style.
Remember, "My style" is to throw the bums out (every once in a while), clean house.
We, you and me, ought to adopt this pledge:
"I ain't got no favorite politician and I don't like *no* stinking politicians: they all suck!"