Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Pundit:

Let me first say objectively that the campaigning for office that goes on limits the ability of politicians at every level to perform their duties. It influences their policy and decision making. (I recall the Clinton’s taking a “vacation” in Upstate NY during Hillary’s Senate run—coincidentally their very first ever “vacation” in New York State).

This happens on both sides of the aisle, with politicians visiting important strategic locations mostly during the campaign season, not to be seen again until the next campaign season.

I found it interesting that you focused on Bush doing this, with nary a comment to his opponent’s similar tactics. In fact, John Kerry recently missed a vote to continue unemployment benefits (and his vote would have changed the result) because he was……campaigning and not doing his elected job.

So you see, its really a systemic problem, and not one that focuses on one party more or less than another. What will be interesting is to see if anyone in this blog has ideas of how to change the system to correct this. I think Carville has some interesting ideas on it from a campaign finance angle that might be able to be expanded to deal with this side of the issue as well.

Both sides can ask the similar questions. Maybe John Kerry should have been in the senate where he is being paid to be to vote for extending unemployment benefits. joebagodonuts has a much more reasonable comment.

I agree with Joe here. Accusing a candidate of ignoring his/her duties in favor of campaigning is a charge that will always backfire. Both sides are guilty.

While I am disappointed that Kerry didn’t participate in that unemployment vote, and while I find his defense (that the Republicans would have easily convinced another Republican to switch their vote so they could still kill the amendment) somewhat lacking, I still think that both Bush and Kerry and every other candidate for major office that ever walked the earth is equally guilty, period.

-Cf

I agree with all of you. The way government is currently conducted is apalling. I used Bush as an example… because he’s the President of the United States.

McCain has another campaign finance reform bill in the Senate and House, but all it does is up the public financing from its current level of $45 million to $75 million. Since both candidates opted out of the public financing scheme, with Kerry raising $80 million and Bush $200 million so far, that seems completely ineffective.

A plan that keeps politicians from ever having to put fundraising over doing their jobs is a no-brainer. The vast majority of Americans agree that politicians soliciting campaign cash for legislation and government contracts is a bad thing.

Since it’s not rocket science to come up with a simple plan that solves the problem while still upholding First Amendment (here’s one from Democrat James Carville), I’m wondering why it’s not a bigger issue.

In fact, John Kerry recently missed a vote to continue unemployment benefits (and his vote would have changed the result) because he was……campaigning and not doing his elected job.

If you believe that bill would have passed if Kerry were there, I have some nice dry land to sell in the middle of Boston harbor. That was an orchestrated result.

As much as it pains me to defend Bush ;), I have to agree that you can’t blame the man for campaigning. It would be nice if he would do it on his own dime, though.

On other hand, it is ridiculous how the GOP accuses of Kerry “politicizing” the issues every time he opens his mouth. For heaven’s sake, the man’s trying to win an election, just like Bush.

I think it is OK for Bush to raise as much money as he can honostly. No monks. no Riahdy family who flees the US, just plain honest fundraising.

(Comments deleted for having nothing whatsoever to contribute toward political or election information or even remote factual relationship to the topic of this article. Please keep it factually on topic. -WatchBlog Manager -)

I think it is OK for Bush to raise as much money as he can honostly.

That’s interesting. I’ve never heard trading legislation for cash described as honest. Currently it’s technically legal, but honest? No.

It’s not a coincidence that 61 Bush Pioneers have been given government posts. It’s no coincidence that energy company campaign donors developed the administration’s national energy policy. It’s no coincidence that health insurance and pharmaceutical company donors drafted the Medicare prescription drug law. It’s not surprising that Rep. Nick Smith was offered a bribe to vote for that bill on the floor of the House. It’s no coincidence that industry lobbyists have been given top posts in the regulatory agencies that oversee their former employers.

Honest? No. Technically legal? Yes.

BTW, I’m beating up on Republicans because they have a majority in both houses of Congress, they have the votes of 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices, and the President of the United States is a Republican.

Republicans have the opportunity to set an example of honest leadership; to end an era of political graft.

But if President Bush wants to waste the chance to be true American hero, rather than a phony balogna action hero, then I’ll just have to write the same article about Kerry next year.

I’ve written my representatives. If anyone knows of a better way to make this happen, let’s hear it. Is www.thepetitionsite.com effective? MoveOn.org? Is there a Republican organization that anyone thinks is willing to do something on this issue?

Selling legislation for money? Let’s be honest about this. Any politician is aligned with interests in society that are both ideological and financial, and it’s never as simple as “selling legislation” (which, anyway, has to pass through a very closely divided congress).

Do you want to say that labor unions aren’t massive contributers to Democrats, and that they don’t get legislation as a result? How about the teacher’s unions? There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, though there are abuses we can all point to. Any legislation is bought and paid for by somebody.

Martin, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Get rid of the union-backed campaign financing. Get rid of the farming lobbies contributing cash for ethanol legislation.

This is a bipartisan issue. The last wave of reform was initiated by a Republican.

What’s wrong with barring incumbents from soliciting money? Didn’t I see you on the other side wondering if groups like MoveOn.org and Air America had broken campaign finance law?

Any politician is aligned with interests in society that are both ideological and financial

I agree. But isn’t it better if the alignment is purely ideological. You wouldn’t have to worry about Soros buying some kind of wacky legislative initiative from Kerry, or unions tacking on idiotic protectionist amendments to a trade agreement.

Any legislation is bought and paid for by somebody.

Why? Shouldn’t legislation be the solution to a problem, arrived at after careful study and deliberation?

Barring incumbents from accepting donations is just plain common sense. Unfortunately, the long established practice of campaign fundraising and the buying of political influence make it seem radical. It’s not.

Woody: Its just amazing the lengths you will go to defend your chosen candidate. So now Kerry misses an important vote, and you suggest that the outcome wouldnt have mattered.

Yknow, that’s even a possibility, considering the shenanigans of our politicians. But in trying to defend Kerry, you also show him to not be smart enough to be “played”. Shouldnt someone of “presidential timbre” be able to sidestep such an obvious landmine?

In any case, in jumping so quickly to Kerry’s defense, you missed the entire point of my thread, which is not to lambaste any single politician, but rather to lambaste ALL politicians who engage in the practice. And more so to lambaste the system which allows, encourages and even forces them to play the game.

Pundit:

You’ve done a really fine job in this thread of making your points. Much appreciated. I’m not sure I’d agree with incumbents not getting money, since then you would potentially have challengers getting money and coming in to change policies based on that money. But it sure would be a start.

I was mainly attacking the naivete about the one-vote business. Love them or hate them, the Republicans are organized. Compared to the Arkansas Project, the one vote business is child’s play.

Thanks, joe.

I’m not sure I’d agree with incumbents not getting money, since then you would potentially have challengers getting money and coming in to change policies based on that money.

That occurred to me too, but since donor info is public, you’d know who’s bankrolling the challenger before going into the voting booth.

“By their donors, ye shall know them.” :)

And you’re ensured that the incumbent isn’t being bankrolled by anyone to whom they’d owe a favor.

I sent off a bunch of emails to my elected representatives in Congress, the President, and the DNC. Naive? Maybe. But I have enough free time to stay on it. Anybody have any other suggestions?

But in trying to defend Kerry, you also show him to not be smart enough to be “played”. Shouldnt someone of “presidential timbre” be able to sidestep such an obvious landmine?

Pardon the “you did it TOOOO” argument, but it occurs to me that the Bush administration has example after example of our prez being outsmarted. Bush usually has the Dems well in hand, but when it comes to foreigners he gets played like a fiddle. Let’s consider the list: Osama bin Laden (Bush received a certain memo whilst playing golf), Ahmed Chalabi, Iraqi insurgents…

By the way, I think that Kerry’s “timbre” is actually rather presidential, although he mumbles at times. ;)

If we ban donations to incumbents, what would that mean for, say, a sitting incumbent Senator running for the Presidency?

And where would incumbents get money to compete against their challengers?

I’m not sure such a policy would be workable at all, much less fair.

-Cf

You have to read the whole plan, Cf. That’s all covered.

Here’s the bullet points:

• No incumbent can take or solicit anything of value from anybody.
• Challengers can raise as much money as they want, but they must fully disclose it.
• The incumbent is credited with 85% (100% minus 15% for the challenger’s fundraising overhead) of that amount from a publicly guaranteed fund like the one (perhaps the same one) we currently use for public funding of candidates.
• If an incumbent Representative wanted to run for the Senate or for President, they’d have to quit first.

Fair, workable, simple, and Constitutional.

Constitutional? I don’t think so. If I want to give money to an incumbent to promote his message, you’re denying me the right to do so—in effect, denying my free speech. It’s the same problem with McCain-Feingold. Also, you’re talking about a HUGE public expenditure if public money has to supply nearly one half of all campaign funding in every political campaign nationwide.

Martin, that’s the point. An incumbent wouldn’t need your money, or anybody elses, to promote his message. And you’re still free to donate as much of your hard-earned paycheck as you want to any wacky PAC you feel like.

And public financing for campaigns is already in place. Before the primaries, candidates who choose to cap their fundraising at $45 million get matching funds (McCain and other Republicans are currently trying to raise the cap to $75 million). After the primaries, the candidates each get $75 million in public financing.

In fact, the reform plan might be cheaper, since we wouldn’t have to finance the challengers as well as the incumbent.

An added bonus would be cheaper campaigns. Since a donor knows that 85% of his donation will go to the incumbent, there isn’t as much incentive to try to buy an election. This would also open up the field a little more to 3rd party candidates who can’t raise the funds that the two major parties can.

Even if you personally don’t think buying political influence is a problem, Republican politicians seem pretty rattled by Kerry’s ability to raise money so quickly. They may be the ones that end up pushing for a reform plan like this. In fact, Republicans are currently the only party spearheading any kind of campaign finance reform.

And even with the massive spending, Bush’s poll numbers are still slipping. It looks like there’s a threshold, above which all the spending in the world isn’t going to make a difference.

Martin, I think you’re in the minority if you believe that legalized bribery and graft are a good thing for a democratic government. A Russian style oligarchy, maybe. But not a democracy.

I’m not saying the plan is perfect as is. Someone brought up the case where more than one challenger is running for the same office. How much money does the incumbent get? Carville’s plan implies that the rules work the same for any number of challengers, but I think that might leave room for manipulation by a party running “fake” candidates against their own incumbent to boost the incumbent’s funding. Maybe the incumbent gets 85% match of the 1st challenger’s funds and then some smaller matching percentage of each additional challenger’s funding. Or maybe a party can only run one candidate for an office. Or the incumbent doesn’t recieve any matching funds for challengers from his own party.

It’s a new system. There are details to work out, but the goal is to make sure incumbents are not being bought. Making it illegal for incumbents to accept anything of value is the only way to do that.

AP,

This funding system has the same flaw as all the other ones. Instead of giving money to Sen. Incumbent, potential donors can just give money to a group with a name like “Concerned Citizens Against Evil” whose mission is to attack Mr. Challenger. They tell Sen. Incumbent that they gave to CCAE, and they get his ear. All protected by the First Amendment.

I wish it was possible to get the big money out of politics, but I fear that there is no practical way to do it without trampling on everyone’s rights. If political speech isn’t protected, then the First Amendment means nothing.

Of course, the more public funding you have, the less important the non-public $ is, so that ameliorates the problem.

George Bush is not only an embarrassment to our country and the rest of the world, he is incompetent. We are in a morass, thanks to his and his administration’s manipulation of the truth; he feigns ignorance, but we know better. GW shows such disrespect to Americans, thinking that simply his telling us something is enough for us to believe it.

Woody, you’re right about the “soft” money. But the important thing is to keep money from directly influencing a politician.

Carville writes that from personal experience running a campaign, direct contributions are four times more effective than soft money because there are no spending restrictions on direct contributions.

There are lots of things that can influence a politician: he can make friends with an energy company CEO; he needs a good idea on an issue, but doesn’t have one of his own; he’s grateful that someone gave a lot of money to his buddies at “Concerned Citizens Against Evil”.

But the one thing that should never influence an incumbent politician is the threat of witholding, or the promise of receiving campaign funds.