Comments on: Our complex problem is really pretty basic…

By: Okay, now send me your grandchildren « Moneyed Politicians

Okay, now send me your grandchildren « Moneyed Politicians — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:32:50 +0000

[...] Our complex problem is really pretty basic… [...]

By: Voter Reforms, boring but necessary « Moneyed Politicians

Voter Reforms, boring but necessary « Moneyed Politicians — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:43:08 +0000

[...] Our complex problem is really pretty basic… [...]

By: MoneyedPoliticians

MoneyedPoliticians — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:40:48 +0000

Thanks John, keep us posted on your progress….

By: John

John — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:35:15 +0000

I just posted this on the proposal to add an advisory referendum for universal health care in Wisconsin.

http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/08/health-care-just-like-our-elected.html

By: ezag

ezag — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:13:15 +0000

There is a cosmic connection between politicians and money. I don’t think you can interrupt that connection so long as politicians can distribute favors…and they will always be in position to do that.

Government entities are just as self-interested and selfish as private entities, so the grand solutions are just as likely to be undermined by those that administer them.

I think the solution lies in tax reform that ties spending to a broadly based taxation model that I describe in “The Rats are in the Cheese.” Like all solutions, it fails the perfection test, but it is a lot stronger than campaign finance reform.

By: MoneyedPoliticians

MoneyedPoliticians — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:40:56 +0000

Yes, please check them out, John. Arizona is at http://www.azclean.org, and is the most interesting of the two because they don’t tax the public, they pay for their system with a surcharge on criminal fines. If you don’t want to contribute to the electoral system, don’t speed. They even had a surplus that was given back to the state.

Yes, the Clintons are interesting. If a special interest wants to get money into Hillary’s pocket all they have to do is pay Bill $200K for a speech or three. She gets half and it’s all legal.

By: John Freeland

John Freeland — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:56:30 +0000

I have to check out the Arizona and Maine systems. Don’t know anything about them. What we have now is a shell game. For example, the Clinton Library is a potential cash cow and money laundering operation. Donors don’t have to be identified. Also, book deals. What if some nefarious organization decides to buy a million or so books written by a candidate? Then dump the books on the secondary market where they might eventually cost somebody a penny. It’s not a bribe, it’s a best seller!

By: MoneyedPoliticians

MoneyedPoliticians — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 02:17:18 +0000

Yeah, the money=speech thing is absolutely stupid, John, but it doesn’t harm public financing of campaigns because they are “voluntary.” If a candidate wants to take private money he can, but if he doesn’t want to he doesn’t have to. He can opt for a public grant instead. Arizona has been sued on the speech issue and the moneyed interests lost.

Disclosure is an oft-suggested fix, but I don’t want to know who is bribing my candidate, I don’t want him bribed at all. And I don’t want to have to chose between two candidates and their bribers. When you really think it through the Arizona and Maine approaches are pretty solid. They have strong public support and 70% of their officeholders are public candidates, including the AZ Governor.

By: John Freeland

John Freeland — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 01:00:39 +0000

Lots of good ideas there, Jack. One big problem is the courts decided money is speech. Too bad speech isn’t money. That court ruling remains the fly in the ointment that poisons the promise of public campaign financing. A reasonable remedy is full disclosure of contributions. That way, at least we’ll know who they’re in bed with.