Campaign Spending
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-21/campaign-spending
Campaign spending for this year’s midterm elections is breaking records, but recent Supreme Court and Federal Election Commission decisions mean we know less about where the money is coming from. Diane and guests explore campaign finance and the influence of secret donors.
Guests
Sheila Krumholz
executive director,the Center for Responsive Politics, OpenSecrets.org.
Jan Baran
attorney in private practice specializing in election law and former general counsel to the Republican National Committee
Brody Mullins
reporter, The Wall Street Journal
Jane Mayer
staff writer, "The New Yorker"
Rep. Chris Van Hollen
Democrat of Maryland, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
How can we call them "elections" anymore?
They are "auctions."
Term limits for Congress would also limit the effect of contributions. If congressmen only served for one term, then the elected officials wouldn't feel as beholden to the special interests.
Isn't L. Frank Baum's "The Wizard of Oz" a roman a clef in which the wizard wants the streets paved with gold? Apparently Alan Simpson and much of corporate America are "off to see the wizard." Nice. Real nice.
Mike Mapstone, Havana, FL
Why not create a leak of a fictitious supporters' list that would be a disservice to the candidate the ad supports? Perhaps they would freely choose to be transparent then. Political satire is the best weapon.
This is just a small part of the needed transparency throughout all of gov't, not just advertisements. If the public and watchdog groups had more access to data on the operation of gov't, the inefficiencies highlighted would further the discussion of needed cuts in the gov't to curb our nat'l debt.
Elections are moving into a zone of obscurity. I've lived in a totalitarian country which had "elections." What we're heading for is something similar: a mock-up democracy with easily manipulated elections.
Allowing donors to operate behind a screen of secrecy coupled with software on electronic voting machines we're not allowed to examine -- both of these contribute not just to the feeling that our elections are open to manipulation but to the probabilty that they are manipulated, if only in a scattering of precincts. For now, anyway.
(And if the voting machines produce dubious results, we have a politicized Supreme Court to make our choices for us.)
This is a tried & true scientific principle - you MUST discern sources of funding to be able to recognize any fundamental bias in the research/survey/evidence/conclusions drawn, etc. Remember the tobacco industry - any research funded by them was found to be riddled with bias that served only their economic interests, and they were found to be culpable in disseminating misinformation that had negative impacts on society. In light of those legal cases, I can't believe the Supreme Court ruled the way it did here. (Yes, I do understand they had different source questions.) But the eventual outcome? The same.
Can we please start a discussion about making political office non-profit?
Lets make all campain adds "public service annonments" and make it a felony to profit from office.
Lets return public service to being a job for statesmen.
The point about secret funding: if you are proud of what you are do and say and certain of your facts you put your name to it proudly- as do Move On.org and George Soros. If you are peddling lies and trying to dupe people with false accusations, you make up a name to hid behind lest your actions blow back on you.
The difference between unions collecting and spending versus the chamber of commerce doing the same: the members of the union benefit from the actions of their union on their behalf - the chamber collects money from members and spends it in ways both inimical and repugnant to their members- which is why i had to quit. Locally they are great- nationally they are worse than the Koch brothers because they hide behind the appearance of decency and public spititedness their members create in each city and town while attacking programs that benefit the same people their members strive to help.
I believe this is a fine topic, however I wish that where the money goes would become more a part of the discussion. It seems to me that the same media sources we use to research candidates, are the ones that profit the most from a "close" election. This is an extreme conlfict of interest that can lead to greedy or even treasonous behavior by our main media sources. Possibly the elephant in the room after all.
This is so ludicrous -- what a disconnect. A failing economy and we're arguing whether ppl throwing money around should identify themselves?!
Anyway, an earnest question:
Can your panel please discuss the pros & cons of term limits?
It seems clear to me that limiting term(s) is the obvious solution to many, many issues.
Is this naive? Would term limits mean only "The Rich" -- those who can take 2 years out of Real Life -- could run for and serve in office?
Is this possible? It occurs to me the same ones to vote on term limits would be those whose terms would be limited!
We hear this hour of Diane Rehm one hour after the original broadcast. It is too bad I could not identify one aspect of the issue that was not discussed. In the 2000 election, the Republicans were outraged at Gore for receiving campaign funds from foreign citizens.
How does the lack of disclosure affect campaigns ability to hide foreign influence in the U.S. election process?
Also, if we want to limit the influence of foreign governments in American politics, then we should also worry about foreign corporations. Most large corporations are now multinational corporations that clearly have no patriotic interest in the best government for the people by the people. They have international corporate interests.
Term Limits:
Don't vote for them and you will end their term. Democracy in action. They can't be re-elected without your votes.
Campaign Finance:
People support candidates who share their views or that they want to share their views. People support organizations that share their views. Why would anyone support a candidate that doesn't at least have an interest in their views?
Some people are susceptible to corruption and bribes. Those people need to be investigated and prosecuted.
It is a great idea to have tranparency in campaign donations and have it apply to ALL organizations/people/institutions, etc..
Unions vs. Corporations? What's the difference again? Unions are accountable to their members. Corporations are accountable to their shareholders. The leaders of either organization are not going to be able to make decisions that contradict their members interests for long.
If you personally want influence, start writing, calling or emailing your representatives.
I want to preface this first by saying that I am frustrated, and that when I become frustrated I often become cynical. I want to be an adult about this, professional, and yet when I look at the state of the political arena and campaigning I see anything but professionalism. It sounds more like the playground at my old Junior High School. It’s nasty, hateful, and a very sad statement on the system, and our society in general.
Do we need reform? Badly!
Our campaigning and voting process is anything but democratic. It’s not even close to being an even playing field.
An yet how simple would that be, to create an arena where the best individual for the job is given a chance to be seen / heard and voted in.
How do you accomplish this, simple:
1. Every candidate receives a website that they and their staff use to describe their platform on issues.
2. A synopsis of each candidates platform is posted in all the major newspapers.
3. A debate is held between candidates, which is aired on TV and radio.
4. Finally every citizen is mandated to vote, just like in Australia.
People vote, end of story.
When tarascon warns us about voting machines this is serious. I have it on good authority that tarascon is both a hardware and software professional.
There is a high probability John O is a paid poster.
Look at the canned talking points he uses.
First he says term limits.
Then he recommends disclosure.
The money would remain an insurmountable obstacle to fair elections and an informed public even if these reforms worked.
Fascists are using an Hegelian dialectic technique to try and divert demands by the public majority for reform. They make ineffectual concessions of their own choosing and then accuse us of rejecting bi-partisanship when we ask for real reforms. It resembles nothing so much as offering a child candy to quell it's crying for a toy or loving attention. We are not children you clones of Oligarchy.
Reform may not be possible as halfway measures. Merchantilist Capitalism itself may have to be dismantled before we can restore effective representative democracy.
Big business people will always have smart lawyers and strategists to twist language and skirt the rules. The only sure solution is to tax or take away their big money. Let's level the playing field by leveling income and wealth.
Several crises are on the horizon. Remember what I recommended when we common people get our chance. Do not worship wealth and have no mercy for privilege.
If Truth is to have any chance at all, it must first be heard. Progressives (and establishment Democrats) are doing a poor job of calling the GOP what they are: bought and paid for by the corporate/wealthy class.
Part of the problem probably stems from the number of Democratic Congressmen who are also heavily beholden to corporate money. But, a lot more of the problem comes from our unwillingness to sell the ‘story’ that there is a class war going on in this country. It has been going on since shortly after the New Deal and WW II brought us out of the Great Depression. The wealthy have been keeping larger and larger proportions of the total production, and moving more and more of our jobs off-shore.
This is the real cause of the middle-class anger. Unfortunately, the rich have managed to channel that anger into hatred of ‘the government.’ We have to get rid of the old Ronnie Reagan story line and identify the real enemy of the middle class. (see The Paradox of Middle – Class Aspiration at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/30 .)