Third Party & Independents: Archives

Bush has said all along that Kerry served honorably and should be proud of his record. I’d say the same is true of all veterans, regardless of where they served or in what capacity during that war. I don’t need CIA or DOD files to make that statement and neither should anyone else, including President Bush.

My issues with Senator Kerry have far more to do with his actions after his abbreviated tour in Vietnam than anything he did or didn’t do while he was there. Half of the book “Unfit for Command” deals with just that, but the press has so far almost completely ignored that, instead choosing to focus on what Bush should do to make the anti-Kerry people stop doing what they’re doing. I haven’t noticed anyone demanding that Kerry stop moveon.org and the other anti-Bush people from doing what they’ve been doing for the past three years.

I wouldn’t say that the military awards system was easily manipulated, but I think most vets would agree that medals were awarded a lot more liberally during Vietnam. If you’re asking someone to serve in a combat zone, especially in what eventually became a very unpopular war, you’re going to do all you can to reward him whenever possible. Civilians get cash bonuses but military people can only get awards and decorations. Any commander who doesn’t take the time to recognize the value of his troops at every opportunity, especially during wartime, should find another line of work.

I think it’s worth mentioning that a Purple Heart is basically given to recognize wounds received as a result of enemy action. It really has little to do with what the recipent was doing at the time he was wounded. A good friend of mine received one of his purple hearts because he suffered some cuts on his arm from flying glass. He happened to be in a bar in Saigon when a satchel charge exploded outside. Did he deserve the Purple Heart? No question about it.

McCain-Feingold is proof that you can’t take the money out of politics. The two major parties will never allow legislation that prohibits outside groups like moveon.org and Veterans for Truth from providing their information to the general public. If they ever do, then forums like this one are in grave danger.

A lot of folks, myself included, say they’d like for all such ads to go away. Of course a lot of people say that tabloids and trash television should go away and yet there seems to be quite a market for them out there. I suspect that, in our hearts, most of us just want the OTHER side’s ads to go away.

John O’Neill has invited Senator Kerry to sue him and his organization for libel if they’ve lied about him. Sounds reasonable to me.

NOTOTH, I think everything you said is very reasonable and defensible, except the following statement: “McCain-Feingold is proof that you can’t take the money out of politics.”

The logic of that sentence fails. Since, the first attempt at reform left much to be desired, to say it is proof the whole concept is invalid, simply is not a logical construction. It is like saying, since invading Afghanistan and Iraq failed to rid the world of Al-Queda, the war on terrorism is a failure and we should quit now. The logical construction is exactly the same.

When the President signed McCain-Feingold, a host of folks agreed it was a down payment on getting control of abuses of our political and election system. Not, a complete answer in, and of, itself. I think we need to forge ahead and reign in special interest funding in excess of that which is affordable by the average voter.

David:

We dont seem to be able to get money out of politics. This is why people spend millions of their own money to get elected to jobs that pay $150,000. It is lucrative for them….the dividends are just a bit more long term. And certainly, power and influence are two of the dividends that pay off.

McCain-Feingold was never gonna work. But they tried. I really think they did try. Without taking away freedom of speech, how do you do away with the money aspect? If you do take away freedom of speech, thats unconstitutional and wont last anyway.

Perhaps simply allowing the money, but calling for complete and accurate listing of where it comes from might help. That way, at least we’d know who was buying whom. (Damn, how cynical is THAT!!)

Anyway, ideas???

jbod, I think you missed the implication of what I said at the end of my comment: “I think we need to forge ahead and reign in special interest funding in excess of that which is affordable by the average voter.”

You don’t get rid of money, you get rid of special interests using money to have a louder voice than average voters. I.E. you calculate what an average American voter contributes to political campaigns, and you cap the amount that can be contributed to that amount per American citizen. Voila! You have a fairly level playing field where most Americans have a fairly equal monetary voice, and special interest groups are out of the loop save for organizing individual voters to contribute as individuals.

David:

I dont understand how your idea wont get rid of the money. If you put a cap on what is given, that will lessen the amount given. Currently, you have a relatively small proportion of the people giving a large amount. If the same number of people continue to give, but can only give the capped amount, then less money will be raised. Not that thats bad, but I dont see how you conclude that you arent removing money from the system.

If you cap what people give parties, you end up with 527 groups or just rich individuals spending their own money. How much can you limit free speech to take the money out of elections?

I don’t know why the Republicans were often against campaign finance reform. The Dems always pushed for it counting on it never to happen. They knew that they were at a disadvantage if contributions were capped at any reasonable amount. Why? As this election has shown, including 527s both parties have similar ability to raise money. There are also about the same number of Dems and Republicans in the U.S. these days, but they are different demographically. The Dems are strong among the poor and moderately poor and the very rich. The Republicans do better in the middle and middle rich. That means that there are a good number of Republicans who can afford $1000-2000.00 and probably not much more. The Dems have people who could give a lot more, but they also have many who can give nothing. The cap takes more Democratic money off the table. A Republican who owns a small dry cleaning store can go head to head with Democrats like Barbara Streisand or George Soros. Everyone is worth a maximum of $2000, and there are a lot more dry cleaners than entertainers or billionaire financiers and Democratic stalwarts like teachers may not be able to afford the $2000 limit.

The Democrats figured this out quickly threw all their extra cash into 527 groups. The Republicans followed soon after. The fat cats are now happier than ever. They can use their money much more freely and political parties have plausible deniability. Campaign finance reform is a good idea whose time will never come. The best we can do is keep the process as transparent as possible.

Jack said: “The best we can do is keep the process as transparent as possible.”

No, the best we voters can do is insist on a $2000 (or whatever amount is average for American citizens in the last cycle)limit per social security number, period. Each person can decide what amount of that $2000 they want to contribute to federal candidates or national parties in a given election cycle. This can be transparent, accountable, and backed up by laws that deter citizens from making any greater financial contributions in an election cycle.

Nothing should be more important to our democracy than an equal opportunity for being heard by each and every American citizen. By the above process we insure that most Americans have an equal opportunity to be heard with a far more equal voice than in our current system, where George Soros, for example, has a voice millions fold louder than an average working person.

The current system is escalating out of control, with over a billion dollars to be spent on political voice in this election cycle at the federal level. And to what end? Essentially it amounts to a yelling match between the parties and candidates with he who has the most money having the loudest and more protracted voice in the media. In such a system, content is not nearly as important as volume.

The McCain Feingold bill has performed very well by forcing the parties and candidates to appeal to individual voters for hard dollars. The Christian Science Monitor reports:

The FEC reports both parties collected more money directly from January 2003 through June of this year. Republicans raised $464.7 million in “hard” (or regulated) dollars during that time, a 64 percent increase over the same period in the 2002 election cycle. Democrats, who typically lag behind the GOP in raising money in smaller amounts (they relied much more on soft money than the GOP in the past) also did well, raising nearly $278.2 million, a 112 percent increase in the same prior period.

This is tremendous progress. Now we need to close the 527 loop holes and leaks. Those who say it can’t be done, do not want it to be done. The hidden agenda behind nay sayers is to protect non-level playing fields in the hopes of gaining an advantage. The losers in such a game are the average American workers and voters whose paltry contributions paled by the likes of corporate donations (e.g. Swift Boat Vets) and folks like Soros.

jbod, I never said the plan wouldn’t reduce the net amount of money in the system. I said it would give each American citizen the opportunity to have the same voice, represented by contributing the same amount, as any other citizen.

Reducing the amount of net money in the system will force the parties and candidates to focus on content of their message instead of broadcast repitition and volume. I accept as fact that money donations is a form of political speech. Thus, more importantly, I seek only to ensure that as many American citizen’s have the same access to that form of political speech as any other Americans. That is why capping political contributions to the average spent by American citizens in the last cycle furthers this goal.

The implications are phenomenal, so much so, rather than go further here, I will write a new article expoloring them. Suffice it to say for the moment, that economic cycles will suddenly have an impact on what politicians and parties can anticipate in donations for the next election cycle. This has profound positive implications for our democracy.

The Dems are strong among the poor and moderately poor and the very rich. The Republicans do better in the middle and middle rich.

Wow, Jack. I’d like to know where you came up with those demographics. That doesn’t sound quite right. :)

IIRC, the Republicans really watered down McCain-Feingold before they’d pass it. McCain was pretty bitter to the point where he didn’t think it would make a difference anymore. Looks like he was right.

David’s right that the goal isn’t to remove all money from politics, but to remove monetary influence from politicians. Our representatives shouldn’t be held hostage to the promise of campaign funds or the threat of funds withheld.

There are a couple interesting plans out there. My favorite is James Carville’s plan. But there’s also the Clean Money, Clean Elections initiative that apparently already has some success stories.

So….
How about if we do this? What if we took all the money that is donated to all candidates and put it in one big pool. This pool could be tapped by all who run. Now even the little guy could run. I know it sounds simplistic, but think about it. It might take the advantage from the big PACs and it might make the 527s a moot point.
By the way, I think Kerry should get over it and “Move On”

Rocky, first of all, your plan is what public campaign financing is all about. I think it’s a great idea.

Second, Kerry has no choice but to defend himself from personal attacks by the Bush campaign.

527s have been hammering Bush for years. Now one comes along and hammers Kerry and the sky is falling. The Democrats sudden indignation over the whole issue is hypocritical at best.

I feel no allegence to either one of these clowns, but I think it’s nessesary to rise above the mud. Through history the candidate that stayed on message usually wins.
I think it’s time that Kerry ran on his congressional record, rather than his military record. Four months in Vietnam do not a candidate make

AP-
2000 exit poll data

Vote by Class All Gore Bush
Upper Class 4 % 56 % 39 %
Upper-Middle 27 % 43 % 54 %
Middle Class 46 % 48 % 49 %
Working Class 18 % 51 % 46 %
Lower Class 2 % 0 % 0 %

Jack doesn’t sound too far off.

You state, nothing should be more important to our democracy than an equal opportunity for being heard by each and every American citizen. But limiting my campaign contributions to $2,000 will never give me the voice that a Natalie Manes or a Bob Dole has. Sean Penn will still have more voice than me even if I win the lottery tomorrow (well, maybe I’d get a say if I donated all my winnings to some campaign) and so will Bill O’Reilly. I can’t say it’s fair, but I equally can’t think of anyway to address the inequality without impeding on these people’s rights.

And, unless Soros takes his money and starts paying people for their vote (election fraud) I don’t see where he is buying the election. He can yell and scream and run ads and make as much noise as he wants, but until he starts putting money into people’s pockets what has he accomplished? As long as he does not employ defective advertising or slander then drawing attention to issues is just as much his responsibility as it is the national media’s.

I see the goal here, but I just can’t see a way to reach it. Until a better solution can be proposed, I say continue with the candidate’s claim to his/her advertising and let these people have their say. Any donation to any organization, be it a candidate, PAC, or 527 should be disclosed, and then, in the motto of the American Bison Party, “Let the Chips Fall Where They May” (A third party reference for you!)

George said: “But limiting my campaign contributions to $2,000 will never give me the voice that a Natalie Manes or a Bob Dole has. “

George, limiting your campaign contribution to $2000 will also not make your logic better, your height higher, or your cholesterol lower. It wasn’t designed to do any of that. So, yes, limiting the contribution will neither increase nor decrease your notariety or that of others in this country, because that is not what it is designed to do.

Limiting the contributions to the same amount for each American and setting it low enough so that most Americans could contribute it if they chose to, does equalize among citizens the voice they have by virtue of campaign contributions. If money talks, (and it does), then your $2000 contribution speaks with the same volume as that of George Soros. It will not enhance your sexual endowments or anything else other than what it was intended to enhance - a leveling of the playing field where money influences politics.

Rocky said: “Four months in Vietnam do not a candidate make”

You are absolutely right, Rocky. Filing for candidacy and winning your parties nomination does a candidate make. Kerry is the candidate for D’s. Live with it. President Bush has worsened and lessened our nation and our people in the last 4 years, but, that does not mean he is not the American President. He is our President, and the half of the country that doesn’t like it, still has to live with it. Why? Because we are a nation of laws, not men, and the laws govern who is a candidate and President, not people’s opinions (except in the ballot box on polling day.)

Aldaron, the hypocrisy is all yours. How conveniently you forget the right’s flack over Move On.Org’s contest for political ads. The right has had their 527’s just like the left, just fewer in number and less well funded. That was their choice. What they are really screaming about is that they didn’t organize and fund their 527’s as well as the left did.

If Bush is sincere about eliminating 527’s, then let him lead the fight for campaign finance reform. Instead of expiditously not vetoing it for political reasons. The Republicans outspent the lefties in previous elections, now, that the lefties are catching up with wealthy donors (previously the province of right), all of a sudden, campaign finance reform (fought by many on the right previously), now makes sense.

There is enough hypocrisy here to go all around the table…

A. Pundit and Rocky agreed “Rocky, first of all, your plan is what public campaign financing is all about. I think it’s a great idea.”

There are a number of objections that many millions of Americans would have with public financing of elections, and thus, such a plan would be jeopardy before even being written up as a bill.

First, a pool, gives one no control over which candidate or party one’s money goes to and thus would act as a disincentive to contributors especially those of an anti-incumbent bent.

Second, it raises a host of questions about what qualifies a candidate or party for receiving those funds. A public financing scheme would act against third parties and independent candidates because they would be in the Catch-22 of having to raise additional monies to qualify before receiving public monies to run, effectively raising the bar for them compared to established parties and candidates.

However, an aspect of public funding, namely FCC mandated coverage and debates among candidates affording equal access to the public through media has a great deal of merit, but, there are some large problems to be resolved there as well, though probably not insurmountable.

David-

See it’s the “if money talks” that I’m disagreeing with. There are other equally unfair factors such as fame and access to major media that can drown out even the loudest of voices coming from my Franklin’s. And there is no way of getting rid of those. Michael Jackson can come out and endorse Bush tomorrow and I’d be powerless to stop the eroding of the President’s support.

If George wants to spend 100 million of his hard earned money on the next Michael Moore movie then that is his right. I can sing “it’s not fair, it’s not fair, it’s not fair, it’s not F-A-I-R fair” (Lambchop) all I want; it won’t change a thing.

George, I appreciate your point. But, this ain’t Nirvana, and perfection will never be found in anybody’s political system anywhere in the universe that human beings are also located.

Campaign finance reform such as discussed above will improve the situation, and because it won’t be perfect is no excuse for not improving it, by my way of reasoning.

The point of a candidate financing pool would be that all political contributions go into the same pool.
Why shouldn’t each viable candidate recieve the same ammount of money to finance his/her campaign?
It could open the door to a real multi-party system. That would be true Democracy in action.
It could also open up elections to a real exchange of ideas. Not just the same bull.

Rocky, the idealism is laudable. However, those making contributions could and would rightly, oppose such legislation on the grounds their their dollars contributed will reduce their voice as opposed to making it equal.

Look, let’s hypothetically say that in 2008 40% of Americans contribute to campaigns under a $2000 cap rule. And let’s say that accounting shows that 64% of those contributing are Republicans and contributed the max of $2000. While the remainder 36% of those contributing were equally split between Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Green Parties and their contributions were for $1000 or less.

The Republicans would rightly scream theft at the top of their lungs since their contributions would disproportionately be underwriting their opponents campaigns. Hence, restricting and weakening their voice.

There are other similar scenarios which would work as a disincentive to contribute, such as the Socialist Party or Communist Party someday becoming eligible to receive public funds. It is not a politically practical idea. If money talks, then no one, not even the law, should be allowed to change one’s message after it is spoken, which public funding would do, in a very real sense.

Mr Reamer, how can the hypocracy be all mine? I’ve never placed a 527 ad, nor filed a complaint about one. I’m just pointing out that the Democrats are being big babies now that the tables are turned on them.

Alderon, I apologise. I was questioning your lack of criticism on both sides for 527’s effects and consequences. My words were poorly chosen and to have accused you of hypocrisy was both unsubstantiated and unwarranted. Please accept my apology.

So,,,,,,
What you’re telling me that whoever raises the most money should be elected? Hardly a qualification for the Presidency.

Rocky, no, that is not what I said or implied. This is a democracy, therefore, the candidate with the most votes (electoral college or otherwise) will determine who gets elected.

What I am saying is that equalizing money as political speech as far as possible without violating the Constitution regarding freedom of speech in the manner I have outlined is the most pragmatic way to reduce the ‘bribery’ of our politicians while preserving the Supreme Court’s ruling that money is speech and therefore protected.

We have to discuss this in realistic and practical terms, not idealistic terms. We have a Constitution and Supreme Court which has laid down laws that constrain our options for correcting the current ‘bribery’ system at least to some major extent.

This is not a black and white issue nor a simple one. For an appreciation of the complexity of the issue see 2004 Issues (Campaign Finance Reform).

“I was questioning your lack of criticism on both sides for 527’s effects and consequences.”

Apology accepted. For the record, I criticize the use of soft money in both campaigns. There… I said it.

Some time in the future we may get to the point where for the general election the networks and cable outlets give each final candidate free and equal air time and all soft money is prohibited after the primary process, if not sooner.

David,
I think that the Supreme Court was wrong.
If money equals free speech then some money talks but lots of money screams.
I don’t think that is what the founders had in mind for democracy.
I do appreciate your point of view though and I thought I would run it out there and see what kind of discussion it would generate.

Alderon, that is a right honorable goal, as the Brit’s would say. I agree, it would be a very healthy thing for our system.

Rocky said: ” I think that the Supreme Court was wrong.”

I thought so too at the time. Now, I am not so sure. I am not convinced that money should be protected speech, but, I am less sure that banning money as speech in our political process would have the desired effects. When I was younger, I was taught, where there is a will, there is a way. Now I am much older, and believe that where there is enough money, there is a way. To ban money as speech would simply drive it underground and further corrupt our system with less transparency, I fear.

“If money equals free speech then some money talks but lots of money screams.”

That is the current state of affairs to be reckoned with.

“I don’t think that is what the founders had in mind for democracy.”

I would have to disagree with you on that. Our founding fathers had just that in mind, when they called for landowners only to vote. They calculated that landowners would have a greater stake in what happens in the halls of government and would make the best watchdogs, literacy aside. Hence it is not a stretch to say that they believed those with the assets should be heard, and the rest of us led.

David,
It is we who must choose our leaders. If money is the only currency of election we might not see the bright light of a leader that would be hidden under the piles of money. I fear for us all.

Rocky, we still have the media and the ballot box (hopefully we will get rid of the electronic voting machines which are a disaster waiting to happen).

Money is corrupting, by reducing its influence, we will reduce the corruption. Mankind has never been able to eliminate corruption, and never will.

Sure, John Kerry was a war hero. For North Vietnam, that is. When troops came home and got spit at and called “baby killers”, they have John Kerry to thank for that. And when the POWs got tortured for refusing to sign confessions to war crimes, they can thank Kerry for inspiring their captors.

America has totally gone to hell if they elect that man. Even worse than they already have by electing Bush.

Ciggy, you have your timeline constructed wrong. Protester’s were shouting baby killers on Belle Isle in Detroit in 1968 and 1969. Years before Kerry gave testimony before congress.

By your incorrect timeline, you would have folks believe Kerry invented the criticism. The facts just simply contradict that concept.