James Carvell's Champaign Reform Proposal

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Yes, but what if a relatively poor guy gets elected somehow. Next term the other party runs a millionaire against him the does no fundraising and the incumbent is ****ed.

I see the condundrum. If we don't count a candidate's own money, then a millionaire challenger can use his own money and leave the incumbant without funds.

But if we do count a candidate's own money, then the incumbant wouldn't be able to use his because he's limited to monies from the FEC. But the Supreme Court has already ruled that a candidate's free speech rights permit him to use all his own money that he wants.

One possible fix would be not to count a candidates money towards the limit (i.e. the top option above) but to guarantee that, no matter what, an incumbant always gets a minimum amount of funds if he has an opponent. --No, that wouldn't work..because what if -- instead of running against a self-financed millionaire -- he's running against a poor opponent who isn't any good at raising money.

[Victor Galis]

Yeah, see the conundrum? I think ultimately it isn't limiting sources of funding that's going to solve the problem, but rather reforming the system in such way that it's less useful or needed (say, free airtime for candidates, etc.).

But then again, I generally prefer demand-side solutions

[Kuciwalker]

Re: James Carvell's Campaign Reform Proposal

Originally posted by Zkribbler
1) Raise congressional salaries from $160,000 to $400,000

2) Bar incumbants from accepting anything from people not members of their own family...no trips, no contributions, not even a postage stamp. A violation results in loss of seat.

3) Challengers can raise any amount of money, but they have to report it to the FEC within 24 hours. A violation results in disqualification.

A bit extreme.

4) The FEC then gives monies to the incumbants equal to 80% of what the challengers raise. (The 20% difference is to account for the expenses of the challengers of fundraising.)

Interesting. It could be expensive.

5) When incumbants want to run for a different office, e.g. congressmen running for the Senate, they must resign from their current office and run as private-citizen challengers (a la Dole's Presidential run).

I don't see why.

[Nubclear]

congressmen running for the Senate,

Senators are congressmen, sir.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Or bribery can be defined as any public official accepting gifts, donations, or capital from someone while in office. Hanging is to good for corrupt officials but life in prison will work.

Bribery can also be defined as posting inanities on the interwebs.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Tacc


Senators are congressmen, sir.

Technically yes. But usually the term "congressman" means members of the House.

I don't see why.

Carvell's underlying theory is that elected officials should be doing to work of the people, not using their time to raise money.

If a member of ths House decided to run against an incumbant Senator, that House member to get funding would have to raise money. (a) He would be doing this when he should be doing the work of the people, and (B) he would be doing this is violation of the rule that incumbants are not allowed to raise money.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tacc
Senators are congressmen, sir.

Zkrib's usage is correct.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Bribery can also be defined as posting inanities on the interwebs.

Then let's give you life in prison for your crimes.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


One possible fix would be not to count a candidates money towards the limit (i.e. the top option above) but to guarantee that, no matter what, an incumbant always gets a minimum amount of funds if he has an opponent. --No, that wouldn't work..because what if -- instead of running against a self-financed millionaire -- he's running against a poor opponent who isn't any good at raising money.

I don't see this as a problem. If you aren't any good at raising money, then that means that you shouldn't run for office

[Koyaanisqatsi]

4) The FEC then gives monies to the incumbants equal to 80% of what the challengers raise. (The 20% difference is to account for the expenses of the challengers of fundraising.)

80% of all challengers combined, or 80% of the richest challenger? If it's all combined then that hardly seems fair.