"Change" to what?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
You don't actually believe this tripe, do you? Obama abandoned public financing because he thought it would net him more money in the long run. End of story.

Nice little jig you danced around the whole "McCain broke the laws he helped write" part.

[Theben]

The truth be in the middle. Had he not spent so much fighting Hillary he would at least had the option of public financing, with his war chest depleted opting for public financing would've been the end of the Dem prez run. I'm not too concerned about that... only the FISA flip.

[Lancer]

We need the extra troops. Everything else sounds good too. If he's elected, I hope it happens.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Nice little jig you danced around the whole "McCain broke the laws he helped write" part.

Since when did NGR support McCain and have to defend him?

[Naked Gents Rut]

McCain is not ready to be the leader of America, either, but at least he's older, wiser and has served his country.

[Deity Dude]

You're batting .500 here Snoopy

Originally posted by snoopy369
The main problem is that most of that list - all of it, probably - is just election time blue-sky proposals that half of which he probably doesn't even want,

I'm pretty sure he wants it to happen.

Originally posted by snoopy369
and the rest just won't happen.

But it ain't gonna happen.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Darius871
Since when did NGR support McCain and have to defend him?

Ask and ye shall be answered... half-heartedly.

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
McCain is not ready to be the leader of America, either, but at least he's older, wiser and has served his country.

Him being older has nothing to do with anything except his physical health. If it did, Obama is 3 years older than Palin so that should end her candidacy. He's not wiser: He. Broke. The. Law. He. Helped. Write. How's THAT for wisdom? And the Keating Five scandal. And the lobbyists running his campaign. And constantly getting basic facts wrong while campaigning for president (Czechoslovakia? Sunnis/Shiites/Iran? among other things). And repeating them after he's been corrected. And then lying about it. And cheating on his sick wife. Christ, the list goes on. Where the f*ck are you getting this "he is wiser" sh*t? Serving one's country is not a qualification for the presidency, it just looks good on the resume. If it were, Gen. Wesley Clarke (who actually GAVE orders, not just TOOK them like McCain) would never have been denigrated for pointing out McCain's status as a POW is not a qualification for the presidency. Notice how Fred Thompson, who never served a day in uniform except on TV, pointed out the exact same thing as Gen. Clarke ... and crickets. No howling about how Thompson is insulting McCain and our service personnel.

I'm not an Obamaniac. He wasn't my first choice, or second, and I'm hard-pressed to call him my third (certainly beats Hillary, though) but this line you posted is just utter crap.

[Timexwatch]

(1) A centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and compaign finance filings, in a searchable, sortable, downloadable format.
(a) Including earmarks.
(b) Including corporate tax breaks.

Practically available now, and it doesn't tell the whole story anyway. Are unions, non-profits, grassroots lobbyists, etc. going to be included?

(2) Public financing of campaigns combined with free airtime on radio & TV to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.

What's the threshold for funding? Would thresholds be even legal? At what point would refusing to give funding constitute suppression of free speech? At what point would denying third party candidates suppress their free speech? How about third party electioneering? Is that going to be banned? Good luck trying to regulate that. IMHO, both financing and free airtime will turn elections into a contest of who can navigate the thicket of regulations better.

(3) Make public all communications between persons outside the government and the White House.

What does that mean exactly? Does that mean that every piece of correspondence, every meeting, every phone call and every e-mail are going to get dumped onto a website to be examined? How about we require everyone to film every meeting or record every conversation? At what point does does reporting become an encumber the normal operation of the White House? Are staffers going to have to sign something like LD-2s, 3s and 203s that I have to prep for folks in my firm? And what happens when White House people don't report communications? And who enforces reporting? If there's no enforcement, then it's just a hollow promise.

(4) No Obama political appointee will be allowed to work on regulations or contracts substantially related to their past employment, for two years -- to reduce K Street influence.

Idiotic. To make more than just hollow lefty posturing, you're going to have to ban union members, civil rights attorneys, 'community organizers', non-profit types, etc. Some of the greatest experts in Washington on federal regs are in the private sector. Two years will discourage the brightest from even bothering to work for the government. When the increased cooling off periods from HLOGA came into effect, I saw a brain drain from many offices that I worked with on the hill. Who wants to be hamstrung from working on issues or with people you've known for the last several years for a year+? The more you insulate government from people who have expertise in the private and public sectors, the worse your administration.

[Ramo]

What's the threshold for funding? Would thresholds be even legal? At what point would refusing to give funding constitute suppression of free speech? At what point would denying third party candidates suppress their free speech? How about third party electioneering? Is that going to be banned? Good luck trying to regulate that. IMHO, both financing and free airtime will turn elections into a contest of who can navigate the thicket of regulations better.

In Detail: The Fair Elections Now Act


With the corrupting role of big money in politics on display in recent Congressional scandals — Delay, Abramoff, Jefferson, and others — and as the cost of campaigns skyrockets, it's clear that we need a system to allow candidates and lawmakers to do the will of the voters, not to further cozy up to wealthy donors and special interests. The Fair Elections Now Act will create that with an opt-in full public financing system for Senate campaigns.

Learn more about:
The Basics | How It Works | How It's Funded | Legislation Details and Text

The Basics

The bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act (S.1285), authored by Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), would create a full voluntary system of public funding for Senate candidates. Such systems are often referred to as "fair elections," or "clean elections." Candidates able to show a threshold level of public support by collecting $5 qualifying contributions from a set number of voters in their state, and swear off further private contributions, can qualify for public funding to run a competitive campaign.

The result is that candidates spend time on the campaign trail talking to voters and addressing policy questions, rather than focusing almost exclusively on collecting large contributions. And once in office, lawmakers would no longer be indebted to wealthy donors who financed their campaigns.

How It Works

A publicly-funded candidate under the Fair Elections system goes through three basic steps: raise seed money, collect qualifying contributions to reach the required threshold, and then — once qualified — receive public funding to run a campaign. Candidates who participate in the program agree not to raise any private money other than a small amount of seed and qualifying contributions. During the campaign, a publicly funded candidate would be eligible to receive additional matching funds if his or her opponent was outspending him with a privately financed campaign.

Here's a closer look at the three steps for a candidate who opts for public funding.

- STAGE ONE: Seed Money
Before declaring an intent to run as a "Fair Elections," or publicly funded candidate, a candidate could solicit, accept, and spend seed money contributions of up to $100 from individual contributors (but not from PACs or other special interests) living in any state. Candidates could spend seed money for any election campaign-related expense, and any excess spending in Stage One would be deducted from the candidate's Fair Elections allocation.

House: Seed money expenditures would be limited to $75,000.

Senate: Seed money expenditures would be limited to a starting cap of $75,000, for a state with one congressional district. For each additional district in the state, the cap increases by $7500.

- STAGE TWO: Qualifying Contributions
To demonstrate viability as a publicly financed candidate, a major party candidate would be required to gather a specified minimum number of qualifying contributions of exactly $5 each. To protect the Fair Elections Fund from fly-by-night candidates lured by visions of free funding, independent and minor party candidates would have to raise 150% of the number of qualifying contributions that a major party candidate would be required to raise in the same election. Qualifying contributions must be collected from residents in the candidate's home state.

House: Candidates would be required to raise 1,500 qualifying contributions.

Senate: The number of qualifying contributions required for any particular state would be equal to 2,000 plus a formula of 500 times the number of congressional districts in the state minus one.

- STAGE THREE: Allocation of Funds to Qualified Candidates
Candidates for House and Senate would receive an initial lump sum grant, according the formula below. The funds available for the primary would be equal to 67 percent of the general election allocation. Participants facing privately funded opponents or heavy independent expenditures would be eligible for additional dollar-for-dollar "fair fight funds" up to 200 percent above the base general election allocation. For instance, if a candidate received $1 million for the general election, he or she could receive an additional $2 million if his or her opponent spent that much in private funds.

House: The amount of initial funding that a candidate would be eligible to receive for the general election is based on the following formula: 80% of the national average spending by the winning candidates during the last two election cycles. Publicly funded candidates would also receive one media voucher worth $100,000 towards the purchase of broadcast time.

Senate: Qualified candidates would receive general election funding in the amount of $750,000 plus a formula that is $150,000 times the number of congressional districts in a state, minus one. Publicly funded candidates would also receive one media voucher for every Congressional district in their state, with each voucher worth $100,000 towards the purchase of broadcast time.

For a state-by-state breakdown of the allocations for qualifying Fair Elections Senate candidates, click here.
How it's funded

Who makes the most money off of the skyrocketing cost of campaigns these days? It's not the candidates and it's not even their consultants. In fact, it's the broadcasting industry that pockets 52 cents out of every dollar — more than half of the money! — spent on the average Senate campaign.*

Broadcasters use the public airwaves for free, and are bound to provide the public service of covering campaigns and elections thoroughly — an obligation that they do not always fulfill. Meanwhile, broadcasters in the top ten media markets have profit margins of nearly 50%.

So funding for the broadcast media vouchers would come from a small spectrum use fee on commercial broadcasters. The fee of up to 2% of gross annual revenues represents a small fraction of broadcasters' outsized profits. The public funding grants under the Fair Elections Now Act would be paid for by a 10% fee on the upcoming auction of the public spectrum.

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?b=2876971&c=dkLNK1MQIwG

As for what something like this would look like in practice, see i.e. Arizona.

[Timexwatch]

independent and minor party candidates would have to raise 150% of the number of qualifying contributions that a major party candidate would be required to raise in the same election. Qualifying contributions must be collected from residents in the candidate's home state.

House: Candidates would be required to raise 1,500 qualifying contributions.

Senate: The number of qualifying contributions required for any particular state would be equal to 2,000 plus a formula of 500 times the number of congressional districts in the state minus one.

Burdening third parties and independents excessively while solidifying the two party system? Exactly what I had in mind for electoral reform! Can you say "Straight to SCOTUS"?

Who makes the most money off of the skyrocketing cost of campaigns these days? It's not the candidates and it's not even their consultants. In fact, it's the broadcasting industry that pockets 52 cents out of every dollar — more than half of the money! — spent on the average Senate campaign.*

Why not just increase the regulation of media and start enforcing the public service requirements for broadcasters instead of creating what could be a multi-billion dollar leviathan?

[Zkribbler]

Re: Re: "Change" to what?

Originally posted by BlackCat


No offense, but shouldn't that be done in four seconds no matter the colour of the president ? One thing is a yanky pres that can destroy the world - another thing is a yanky pres that doen't know where his weapons are

That's Rooskie weapons. There's been a threat of them falling into terrorists hands ever since the Soviet Union fell, leaving the weapons under guard of underpaid, undertrained troops. I remember stories of some nukes being found, only surrounded by a chain link fence locked with a single padlock.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Timexwatch


Practically available now, and it doesn't tell the whole story anyway. Are unions, non-profits, grassroots lobbyists, etc. going to be included?

Why wouldn't they be included. Obama wants the government to be more transparent.

What's the threshold for funding? Would thresholds be even legal? At what point would refusing to give funding constitute suppression of free speech? At what point would denying third party candidates suppress their free speech? How about third party electioneering? Is that going to be banned? Good luck trying to regulate that. IMHO, both financing and free airtime will turn elections into a contest of who can navigate the thicket of regulations better.

This is a two-parter. First, free air time. Second, public finance. There's no talk here of denying anything to third parties.

What does that mean exactly? Does that mean that every piece of correspondence, every meeting, every phone call and every e-mail are going to get dumped onto a website to be examined? How about we require everyone to film every meeting or record every conversation? At what point does does reporting become an encumber the normal operation of the White House? Are staffers going to have to sign something like LD-2s, 3s and 203s that I have to prep for folks in my firm? And what happens when White House people don't report communications? And who enforces reporting? If there's no enforcement, then it's just a hollow promise.

I would think every piece of correspondence, minutes of meetings (not involving classified matters), e-mails, etc. will be affected. Since there's going to be a searchable, sortable search engine, the amount of stuff should not be a major problem. Transparency is a good thing. "The best disinfectant is sunshine."

Idiotic. To make more than just hollow lefty posturing, you're going to have to ban union members, civil rights attorneys, 'community organizers', non-profit types, etc. Some of the greatest experts in Washington on federal regs are in the private sector. Two years will discourage the brightest from even bothering to work for the government. When the increased cooling off periods from HLOGA came into effect, I saw a brain drain from many offices that I worked with on the hill. Who wants to be hamstrung from working on issues or with people you've known for the last several years for a year+? The more you insulate government from people who have expertise in the private and public sectors, the worse your administration.

These guys don't have to be banned. Just former union people cannot work on union matters; civil rights attorneys cannot come to the White House and work on their previous cases, etc. The K-Street->White House-> to K Street merry-go-round is perverting American government.

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

Why wouldn't they be included. Obama wants the government to be more transparent.

Because they're mostly Democratic affinity groups who fly under the radar of most "anti-lobbyist' groups. Considering the campaign, from what I hear from our clients, has been promising a huge rollback of current "onerous" reporting requirements to DOL for Unions, I'm not holding my breath that an Obama administration is going to be even handed with 'lobbyists'.

I would think every piece of correspondence, minutes of meetings (not involving classified matters), e-mails, etc. will be affected. Since there's going to be a searchable, sortable search engine, the amount of stuff should not be a major problem. Transparency is a good thing. "The best disinfectant is sunshine."

This would be all well and good, but the usefulness of the database will depend mainly on its timeliness and to what level the administration declares certain information "privileged". I can't see anything remotely useful for outside groups being posted to this website. There are so many ways that one could get around it anyway.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Timexwatch
This would be all well and good, but the usefulness of the database will depend mainly on its timeliness and to what level the administration declares certain information "privileged".

Privilege only goes to communications between the Prez & his advisors...not with the outside world.

I can't see anything remotely useful for outside groups being posted to this website. There are so many ways that one could get around it anyway.

"Getting around it" will always be a problem. Whenever there's a rule, No. 1 on certain people's agenda will always be "How do I get around it."

[Imran Siddiqui]

bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act (S.1285), authored by Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), would create a full voluntary system of public funding for Senate candidates.

See the whole "voluntary" party. Is Obama's plan for a voluntary system of public financing? It'd have to be though, right? Because anything else would violate the 1st Amendment.