Proposition 89

[3point14]

Not being an American, I perhaps have a skewed view of the US political system as favouring those with money over those without when it comes to the election process. (how much does one have to spend to get a shot at being president?)

I'll admit to perhaps being wildly ill-informed, but I came across discussion of this in my newspaper this morning, and after searching on here, couldn't find any mention of it.

Seeing as this is my favorite place to pick up oh so many contrasting political views, I thought I'd see what thoughts you all had on this (or, if I failed to find the appropriate thread, could someone point me to it?)

(Of course, this is all so I can make myself sound far more educated and well informed than I actually am when discussing stuff in the pub)

Now I have to try and make this link work...

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/state/article/0,1375,VCS_122_5087257,00.html

 

[webfusion]

It would have garnered wider interest and probably achieve more support if instead was numbered "69"

 

[Beerina]

It proposes to change races for public office by creating a pot of tax money that candidates for state office could tap into if they agreed to reject private campaign contributions,

As happened at the national level, the candidates will just decline the "pot of tax money" and go nuts even more on campaign donations.

and it proposes to end the ballot proposition wars as we know them by limiting to $10,000 the amount that any corporation could give to an initiative campaign.

This is a limit on freedom of speech. Witness the following:

"Proposition 89 would level the playing field so that public interest groups' message could be heard without being drowned out by a flood of corporate cash," said Bill Magavern, senior representative of Sierra Club California.

In other words, supporters of this bill spell out exactly why they want it: to limit the speech of their opponents. Opponents who aren't doing it to buy the politicians, but for the good old honest reason they want the proposition defeated.

Highly disgusting.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As happened at the national level, the candidates will just decline the "pot of tax money" and go nuts even more on campaign donations.

In a state where it has been enacted, a significant percentage of politicians go for it.

 

[BPSCG]

In a state where it has been enacted, a significant percentage of politicians go for it.

Which state? Can you supply further details?

I'm always suspicious of "public funding" of elections (Mrs. BPSCG and I always check the "no" box on our 1040 - one of the few things we agree on in the sphere of politics); it's just one more opportunity for the politicians to slurp at the trough. Public funding essentially says, "I don't care what the state budget is, or how high my taxes are, or what other priorities there might be; give the politicians a buck (or two or three) from my taxes right off the top, before anyone else gets anything."

Screw that.

 

[3point14]

Which state? Can you supply further details?

I'm always suspicious of "public funding" of elections (Mrs. BPSCG and I always check the "no" box on our 1040 - one of the few things we agree on in the sphere of politics); it's just one more opportunity for the politicians to slurp at the trough. Public funding essentially says, "I don't care what the state budget is, or how high my taxes are, or what other priorities there might be; give the politicians a buck (or two or three) from my taxes right off the top, before anyone else gets anything."

Screw that.

Do you not view that as preferable to having special interest groups (big business included) giving large campaign donations to both political parties and therefore having sway over policy decisions regardless of who wins the election?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not being an American, I perhaps have a skewed view of the US political system as favouring those with money over those without when it comes to the election process.

I see nothing wrong with that. Those with money are better than those without.

 

[Mycroft]

Do you not view that as preferable to having special interest groups (big business included) giving large campaign donations to both political parties and therefore having sway over policy decisions regardless of who wins the election?

Why is that a bad thing?

Big business should have the attention of politicians because the decisions made by big business effects many people.

Further, if the politician knows that the big business is going to contribute both to him and his opponent, that frees the politician to vote against the interests of the big business if he feels he needs to. He knows the business will still contribute to his campaign (though maybe a lesser amount) and that money was never exclusive to him anyway.

 

[BPSCG]

Do you not view that as preferable to having special interest groups (big business included) giving large campaign donations to both political parties and therefore having sway over policy decisions regardless of who wins the election?

Thing is, there's no such thing as a special interest group that "has sway" over policy decisions, because there are thousands of special interest groups, all with their own competing interests. If I write to my congressman to tell him I favor strangling puppies and I want him to vote for the Strangling Puppies Act of 2006, he won't be terribly impressed. But if I write to him as a member of the National Puppy Stranglers Association (NPSA), with thousands of chapters and millions of members all around the country, that gets his attention.

If I tell him I don't want a forest burned down so that a parking garage can be built, he'll shrug his shoulders. But if I tell him I'm with the Sierra Club, and the Sierra Club wants to know what he thinks about burning down forests to build a parking garage, he'll pay attention.

People will always organize into groups to try to get their way; it's perfectly natural. What the public funding proposers don't like is that a lot of people organize themselves as corporations, which are all evil (except for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting), instead of good organizations like the Sierra Club.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which state? Can you supply further details?

I'm always suspicious of "public funding" of elections (Mrs. BPSCG and I always check the "no" box on our 1040 - one of the few things we agree on in the sphere of politics); it's just one more opportunity for the politicians to slurp at the trough. Public funding essentially says, "I don't care what the state budget is, or how high my taxes are, or what other priorities there might be; give the politicians a buck (or two or three) from my taxes right off the top, before anyone else gets anything."

Screw that.

Arizona, it came about in 1998 and in 2004 60% took that money instead of engaging in private fundraising.

url

Now it might be concidered unamerican to be unable to purchase your politicians the old fashion way, but it does seem to be popular

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thing is, there's no such thing as a special interest group that "has sway" over policy decisions, because there are thousands of special interest groups, all with their own competing interests.

So it is clearly untrue that so many politicians put things in bills because of donations from lobbiests. All that rencent scandals and such are a figment of my immagionation I guess.

It is not that there are special interest groups it is that the ones with the most money have a dispropotional voice. So we get oil companies writing our energy policy. But then again who would know better right?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why is that a bad thing?

Big business should have the attention of politicians because the decisions made by big business effects many people.

Further, if the politician knows that the big business is going to contribute both to him and his opponent, that frees the politician to vote against the interests of the big business if he feels he needs to. He knows the business will still contribute to his campaign (though maybe a lesser amount) and that money was never exclusive to him anyway.

So in other words the K street project and all those lobbiest scandals where really democracy in action?

 

[3point14]

Hmm, food for thought, I guess it's just the money that concerns me. When the popular view of the 'most powerful nation in the world' is that it's less 'one man one vote' and more 'one dollar one vote'

I'm not saying it's true, I don't have the necessary knowledge to say one way or another, but that's often the perception.


Edited to add:-

The thought occurs, that if these donations don't disrupt the democratic process, then why are the donations made?

 

[BPSCG]

So it is clearly untrue that so many politicians put things in bills because of donations from lobbiests. All that rencent scandals and such are a figment of my immagionation I guess.

It is not that there are special interest groups it is that the ones with the most money have a dispropotional voice. So we get oil companies writing our energy policy. But then again who would know better right?

(Well, yeah... Bitch and moan about the eeeevil oil companies all you want, but they somehow find a way to extract oil from the earth in countries who hate us on the other side of the world, ship it across the ocean, refine it into gasoline, truck it to your local gas station, and get it into your car for less money than the dairy fifty miles from your house can put a gallon of milk in your refrigerator. Seems to me they might know a little bit more about supplying energy than your local chapter of the Sierra Club.)

Look, someone will always have disproportionate influence. You might as well try to legislate that everyone have the same IQ. Money always finds a way. Do you think the McCain-Feingold campaign spending law has slowed down the flow of money to politicians?

You can't eliminate money from politics. TV time costs money.

 

[ponderingturtle]

(Well, yeah... Bitch and moan about the eeeevil oil companies all you want, but they somehow find a way to extract oil from the earth in countries who hate us on the other side of the world, ship it across the ocean, refine it into gasoline, truck it to your local gas station, and get it into your car for less money than the dairy fifty miles from your house can put a gallon of milk in your refrigerator. Seems to me they might know a little bit more about supplying energy than your local chapter of the Sierra Club.)

Look, someone will always have disproportionate influence. You might as well try to legislate that everyone have the same IQ. Money always finds a way. Do you think the McCain-Feingold campaign spending law has slowed down the flow of money to politicians?

You can't eliminate money from politics. TV time costs money.

You are right, there is no legitimate need to have any oversite of any corperation. What the hell was I thinking. And these laws that make it so you have to actualy say in a legaly binding way that you are not lieing to your share holders are way to intrusive.

Damn you goverment for all your intrusive unnessaracy acts, like clean air, disabilities and all this having to hire women and people of color just because they are qualified.

Clearly drug companies should be the ones to decide if they should sell a product, all this FDA crap is just getting in the way.

There are very good reasons why you want people who regulate an industry to be seperate from the industry. Do industry concerns matter, sometimes, of course industries have fought enviromental legislation that saved them money in the end, but why should we make them save money after all?

The politicians job is to ballance conflicting intrists, as it is we have them selling out to th intrist with the most money, but as god gave them that money I guess they must be moraly superior right?

 

[Dr Adequate]

People will always organize into groups to try to get their way; it's perfectly natural. What the public funding proposers don't like is that a lot of people organize themselves as corporations...

But whereas people join pressure groups, and contribute to the expenses of those pressure groups, in order that those pressure groups should affect the political process, they do not become employees of a corporation and thus contribute to the profits of that corporation in order that the corporation should be able to affect the political process.

 

[Garrette]

But whereas people join pressure groups, and contribute to the expenses of those pressure groups, in order that those pressure groups should affect the political process, they do not become employees of a corporation and thus contribute to the profits of that corporation in order that the corporation should be able to affect the political process.

Nor do they join corporations in order that the corporation should be able to affect the actions of chartiable organizations such as the United Way and the Red Cross and myriad others to which corporations voluntarily contribute without the consent of the employees.

Given that the charitable organizations are tax-exempt, perhaps we should consider outlawing corporate donations to them?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I never proposed "outlawing" anything. I merely pointed out the fault in the analogy.

The analogy between political and charitable donations doesn't seem exact either.

 

[Garrette]

I never proposed "outlawing" anything. I merely pointed out the fault in the analogy.

Ah. My bad. Just add it to my growing list of mistakes. Apologies.

The analogy between political and charitable donations doesn't seem exact either.

It's not exact, of course, or it wouldn't be an analogy; it would be a description. In response to the mythical someone who was saying what I thought you were saying, I stand by this part.

 

[Dr Adequate]

On the other hand, maybe you have a point about charitable donations too.