James Carvell's Champaign Reform Proposal

[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.

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.)

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).

What do you think of this?

[Victor Galis]

So rich incumbents will be able to outspend challengers every time?

[Jon Miller]

Seems to encorage the rich.

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
So rich incumbents will be able to outspend challengers every time?

I believe the when Carville says the incumbent gets 80% of the challenger raised money that that is ALL they can raise for their campaigns.

[mactbone]

Illinois will never go for it. They're having a hard enough time without the Chief.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I believe the when Carville says the incumbent gets 80% of the challenger raised money that that is ALL they can raise for their campaigns.

Unfortunately, if that were the case it would be unconstitutional, so ...

However, I don't think this would favor rich people any more than anything else favors rich people (ie current system). As long as the challenger's personal funds are exempted (As they would 1st-amendment be required to be) both challenger and incumbent have the same advantage in terms of personal funds.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by mactbone
Illinois will never go for it. They're having a hard enough time without the Chief.

Oh, now I get it.

Chief Illiniwek
NCAA

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
So rich incumbents will be able to outspend challengers every time?

But some of the spending will have to be in efforts to raise campaign money. That's why the 20% difference. The incumbants just have the money handed to them.

That way, legislators won't have to spend 60+% of their time begging people for money.

[Arrian]

Seems impractical.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


But some of the spending will have to be in efforts to raise campaign money. That's why the 20% difference. The incumbants just have the money handed to them.

That way, legislators won't have to spend 60+% of their time begging people for money.

That way incumbents don't have any reason to listen to promises of campaign funding from lobbyists

My campaign finance reform proposition:

Put the NCAA in charge of campaign finance reform.

That would fix it

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Seems to encorage the rich.

Jon Miller

One the one hand, yes.

But if I was a rich contributor, I wouldn't like this. I'd be used to buying my way in to see my Congressman, Senator or President. Now, I wouldn't be able to.

I could offer a ton of money to a challenger and maybe get him or her to kiss my butt, but the incumbant opponent would get almost as much. And once my guy got elected, he could blow me off with impunity and do what he thought was right.

I don't want "right." I want special favors!

[Arrian]

And once my guy got elected, he could blow me off with impunity and do what he thought was right.

Why?

-Arrian

[Dinner]

How about just saying that incumbants accepting any gifts over $100 while in office is bribery then make the manditory sentence for bribery life in prison without parole?

[snoopy369]

Meh, even a year and a day in prison is more than adequate for bribery. The combination of (Jail time) and (embarassment) and (Felon status)* is a quite substantial deterrent ...


* Excepting certain D.C. mayors, anyway.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
How about just saying that incumbants accepting any gifts over $100 while in office is bribery then make the manditory sentence for bribery life in prison without parole?

Because bribery involves a provable quid pro quo and it doesn't cover each and every donation to a campaign.

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.

So no more camapign volunteers?