What is campaign finance reform and why doesn't it work?
81972
http://www.philipdru.com\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com\nhttp://thestressblog.com\nhttp://www.un.org/\nhttp://www.antiwar.com\nhttp://www.kaos959.com
209612
if this is the same as the bipartisan campaign reform act then it was when Congress but more limitations on the money that political parties can get during election campaigns, it aimed to stop 'soft money' - unlimited donations for 'educating the electorate' which parties just used to finance candidates' campaigns.
170720
The reality is it only does when the bourgeious are the ones footing the campaign funding of a particular candidate. I'm not sure how old you are, or if you're even from the US, but here there was a time when the needs of real people were put foremost, money was set aside for them, towns were getting cleaned up, there was a revitalization in America, there was a TRILLION dollar overage of public funds.  That was before the year 2000, much has changed since then There's always a little pandering to the one's who have all the dough, because they're the one that get people elected, and the people that get elected don't really care about real people, with the exception of Presidents and Administrations past. Bottom line answer is "Because they're usually Borgeious themselves.  It's a comfort zone thing
932859
It's not.\n\nWhile the local candidate was correct in that campaign finance laws frequently require disclosure of the transactions the campaign committee makes, there is no law requiring release of personal tax returns.\n\nMany candidates do it, nonetheless, for competitive reasons.
985017
Actually, they do not get to keep it. It is interesting to note, that both democratic and republican candidates have ended up with a surplus then turn it over to the party, but they still get into trouble for it. It is so ambiguous as to what they are supposed to do with it. So far, no candidate has gotten into serious trouble for using this money for their next election campaign. The election campaign reform that was proposed by John McCain would have closed up loop holes and spelled out exactly what and where the war chest money could go after an election.
1130746
i used to do it for a living... lots of letters can make a difference. but press makes a bigger difference... organize a letter writing campaign and send a press release to a local paper... politicians only react to that which can affect their reelection... most politicians just want to try to represent the wishes of the democratic majority of their constituentss. so don't waste your time writing to pol.s that don't represent you... don't wast your time writing if you don't vote... because they won't care...\n\nbut of course, like all politics, the most effective pushes are money and the vocal minority...
865764
Yikes!\n\nSome were very effective and some didn't work at all.  One political change that was not very effective was the rise of the progressive movement and other third parties.  They were never able to break onto the national scene.  Likewise the Socialists.\n\nThe federal level took a stronger role in corporate area forcing the breakup of trust and the implementation of a more regular tax system.\n\nThere are tons more but you get the idea.
34361
I lived in Switzerland for 5 years and found that their model worked very effectively. \n\nMinorities on any issue were frustrated that they could not get their particular item approved, and in those cases would sometimes argue that the public could not grasp the full implications of their vote.\n\nHowever, I found the public very well informed on issues, much more than here, and contrary to what one might think, did approve tax increases when convinced they were necessary and did make other uncomfortable choices.\n\nI think if people felt they could influence something here in the US, they would become more engaged.\n\nIt would certainly blow apart the whole special interest lobbying method of getting agendas delivered.
379571
We need to revisit campaign finance reform.  This is actually the root of so many of our socio-economic problems.  \n\nWhy are Americans paying through the nose for gasoline while oil companies are getting tax breaks and making record profits?  Because the oil companies fund our political parties \nand thereby exert a huge amount of control over them.  \n\nWhy are drugs and healthcare so incredibly expensive that they threaten to bankrupt our Social Security and Medicare programs and leave most of us without the benefits for which we paid taxes our entire careers?  Because Pharmaceutical companies, who are also enjoying low tax rates and record profits, also fund the political parties and lobby for legislation that will benefit them and not the public.\n\nCampaign finance reform would limit the amount of money that political parties and politicians themselves could accept from private donors, and would fund campaigns from public tax dollars.  Any increase in government spending that results from this type of program would be easily offset by raising taxes to those corporations whose campaign donations made that unfeasible in the past.
1090648
The current system is as follows:\n\nThe federal and state governments set guidelines for program provisions (ELL, special ed, etc.) and student performance at a certain level, based on political expediency.\n\nWhen they decide funding for schools, they do not look at what these mandates require in order to have even a chance of success (much smaller student to teacher ratio, adequate time in the school day, a textbook in every subject for every student at every level that can be taken home and/or are consumable, adequate materials, etc.). They look at what the tax base can support, after other, "more important" areas are funded.\n\nEducation legislation today has nothing to do with educational ethics... Republicans are attempting to remove Education from the federal budget while scapegoating teachers to save their own political hides. State legislation is based on squeaky wheels and voter interest, not on real functional research-based policies.\n\nFunding decisions have nothing to do with educational ethics, only with expediency for legislators... what is the minimum that can be thrown at the schools (that fine balance between enough to keep people thinking that the funding sources are "doing their best," and minimizing cost as much as possible.
599532
I have bought many get rich scheme plans, most of them seem workable but are unfeasible. One was buying and selling Great Dane dogs, many people will give you their dog for free, also many people wish to buy the dogs (so the scheme claims) at good prices, also you can breed them for puppies if they come with KC papers. Another bizarre one was buy and sell piano's, same deal really... many people will give you their old piano for free, and many people want to buy one, again at a reasonable price. The only one that worked for me was a complete business plan of how to set up a window cleaning business... it works great, and the same plan can be used for many businesses. (I might re-right it and sell it as a get rich scheme my self  because it really works)!! Only kidding, I'm far too busy.
1052773
It's certainly not an easy question or our elected leaders would have done it a long time ago.  And any simple answer you hear to this question is likely riddled with problems.\n\nOne problem is that one person's "pork project" is another person's vital program, so cutting out "pork" is not as easy as it looks.  There are some eggregious examples of wasteful & foolish spending every year, but most of the earmarked spending goes to projects that specific groups of constituents have clamored for.  And another difficulty is the fact that these pork projects are often part of the negotiations process for major legislation.  If we take away earmarked spending completely, it would be like trying to drive a car without ever giving it oil: the process would just break down & very little would get done.  It doesn't make earmarked spending right or wrong: it's just important to face the realities of politics if an effective solution is to be found.\n\nGovernors have it tough: they can't print more money every time they need it, so they actually have to balance budgets.  It would be a welcome change if the folks in D.C. would stop putting additional financial burdens on the states in an effort to look like they're cutting spending (ex. Medicare and No Child Left Behind.)\n\nSolutions?  We have to treat the federal budget like we would a credit card: You must not spend more than you can afford to pay or you will lose a LOT of money in the long run.  Despite the economic benefits of doing so, cutting taxes without cutting an equal amount of spending is simply taxation of those not yet old enough to vote.  So we need to reinstate "pay-as-you-go" rules & hold Congress accountable to those rules every election.  If someone votes for a tax cut without saying how the tax cut will be paid for, replace that office holder with someone who knows how credit cards actually work.\n\nTax cuts are not inherently bad and government spending is not inherently bad.  But spending what you can't pay IS bad.  That's the part that needs to change.
434262
Immigration law reform is long overdue.  I'm more interested in what the actual law will look like after it gets out of committee (or if it can even get out of committee).  The biggest problem with sweeping reform legislation is that it rarely works and usually backfires in some form or other (See the recent bankruptcy reform legislation.)  I wish I had a little more faith in the political process to get stuff right.
1122501
Look at Florida. And it still isn't fixed!\n\nAbsentee ballots, exclusionary practices, voting machine tampering, blocking calls for rides, as the repubs plead guilty to in US Federal; District court and many other ways!!\n\nI am sure they are still thinking up ways to defeat the system!
387016
you could argue it helped bring the issues back into presidential elections for the first time in a few elections. Since deflation was crippling the farmers and farming was still a major economic activity in the united states local coops were created. Also there was the creation of the populist party which although they werent succesful in presidential elections, they did help get some reforms eventually passed outside of elections. with many people seeking some form of solution to the money problems in the era, the candidates for elections had to take stands on how they were going to solve the problems, which was not as necesary in the previous decades of election.
198918
It works.  As long as we, the voters, respond positively to all the trash, politicians will continue to use it.  \n\nThe Internet provides a means to examine some of the claims made, but so too do local and regional news sources. \n\nIf citizens start to responsibly inform themselves most of it can end. You know Abe Lincoln's line  "You may fool all of the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."  Do your homework - don't be the fooled.
1146933
That's interesting. Really.\nI didn't look through the whole site.  So government funding advertising and campaign, with no private donations or little if using a match system.  It may work, but there are possible problems.  \nHow much money\nCould any candidate qualify with signatures, I'm not trying to be totally exclusive, but I also don't want any moron with a few signatures using taxpayers money to run a stupid campaign that endorses some stupid agenda, like wicans or something.\nAnd there's an extra commission or committee every year to determine equity in the funding.\nAnd it is kind of socialist.  Just kind of, don't get mad.\nI'm not trying to be negative, just thinking of pitfalls.\n\nIt is something to think about.