If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SacBee)   California hopes to solve growing partisanship by removing the public funding of primary campaigns, forcing candidates to become even more partisan in hopes of raising enough money   (blogs.sacbee.com) divider line 48
    More: Fail, Partisanship, Board of Equalization, political campaigns, financing, Gray Davis  
•       •       •

400 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2013 at 3:58 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-08 03:45:42 PM
Few, if any politicians go for public funding any more- they can raise much more money with private funding
 
2013-08-08 04:04:53 PM
If you ever want to get rid of the 'for rent' politicians that thrive on being openly bribed by lobbyists, then you have to get rid of ALL private funding for public elections.

Each politician gets a set amount of money and a certain amount of allotted air time for their ads on TV and in print.  They're not allowed to spend their own money, nor accept donations of cash from citizens or companies/corporations.

Want to help your candidate out?  Donate your time, not your money.

Until then, we deserve our system of open bribery in government.
 
2013-08-08 04:08:17 PM
www.ivandavidoff.com
 
2013-08-08 04:10:25 PM
Peace said in a recent interview that parties would not be legally required to open their primaries to voters -- they would just have to fund a closed primary independently.
"If you, the Republican Party, want to say independents can't participate, fine, but you're going to have to pay for the costs to tally that vote," said Peace, who was appointed finance director by then-Gov. Gray Davis after being termed out of the Legislature.


cdn.pjmedia.com
 
2013-08-08 04:12:34 PM
Having the state pay for a primary where the party officials can, and have, freely ignored the delegates' votes at the national level isn't sensible.

//I'm angry about the democrats doing it with regard to their platform, but the republicans did it with respect to Paul voters too.
 
2013-08-08 04:13:14 PM
Yea, not public funding of primary campaigns. Public funding for running closed primary elections.
 
2013-08-08 04:13:35 PM
This would eliminate government run primary elections for President (not just public funding for campaigns) unless they were completely open, which would probably result in California becoming a caucus state (which is, in fact, more likely to be won by more extremist candidates as opposed to moderates, due to the typical time commitment required attend a caucus (several hours as opposed to five minutes)).
 
2013-08-08 04:17:02 PM
Subby fails for inability to distinguish between "California hopes..." and "Californian hopes..."
 
2013-08-08 04:22:05 PM
Just a point of interest: Steve Peace is one of the guys responsible for Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes

/I have difficulty taking him seriously, for some reason
 
2013-08-08 04:24:16 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Just a point of interest: Steve Peace is one of the guys responsible for Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes

/I have difficulty taking him seriously, for some reason


Return of the Killer Tomatoes had a better tomato.
 
2013-08-08 04:26:48 PM
We get the government we deserve.
 
2013-08-08 04:39:22 PM
It's probably unconstitutional but a ban on political tv ads would take a huge amount of money out of campaigns. Television ads tell you pretty much nothing anyway so there wouldn't be anything of value lost. They do this in the UK and their campaigns budgets end up much smaller, even accounting for the difference in populations.
 
2013-08-08 04:53:42 PM
No public funding of primaries.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Force the parties to spend their own dime.
 
2013-08-08 04:58:23 PM
The BojanglesPaladin Magic Wand Solutions to money in campaigns TM:

Henceforth and forevermore be it resolved that no broadcaster using the public airwaves held in trust in the commons may sell or exchange for consideration time, access, or advertising of any kind to any political organization, candidate, or affiliated group, be it union, PAC, SuperPAC or any group seeking a political objective.

Further be it resolved that all broadcasters under licensure and regulatory oversight from the FCC shall, during the period of 6 months prior to any local, state, or federal election shall provide at no charge and without any consideration an equal allotment of time, access, or advertising to any political candidate appearing on the relevant ballot in said election. This equal allotment shall constitute no less than 5% and no more than 10% of the broadcasters existing advertising schedule, and no less than 30% must be during 'prime-time' hours.


Period. No paid advertising on TV or cable, everyone who is running and on the ballot gets it for free. Everyone gets free speech, no one has to pay for it.

Simple. Effective. Entirely unlikely to ever be implemented without a magic wand.
 
2013-08-08 04:59:04 PM

mediablitz: Sounds like a good idea to me. Force the parties to spend their own dime.


Force the parties to exchange political promises for money to win elections.
 
2013-08-08 05:02:52 PM

BojanglesPaladin: The BojanglesPaladin Magic Wand Solutions to money in campaigns TM:

Henceforth and forevermore be it resolved that no broadcaster using the public airwaves held in trust in the commons may sell or exchange for consideration time, access, or advertising of any kind to any political organization, candidate, or affiliated group, be it union, PAC, SuperPAC or any group seeking a political objective.

Further be it resolved that all broadcasters under licensure and regulatory oversight from the FCC shall, during the period of 6 months prior to any local, state, or federal election shall provide at no charge and without any consideration an equal allotment of time, access, or advertising to any political candidate appearing on the relevant ballot in said election. This equal allotment shall constitute no less than 5% and no more than 10% of the broadcasters existing advertising schedule, and no less than 30% must be during 'prime-time' hours.

Period. No paid advertising on TV or cable, everyone who is running and on the ballot gets it for free. Everyone gets free speech, no one has to pay for it.

Simple. Effective. Entirely unlikely to ever be implemented without a magic wand.


It's blatantly unconstitutional, to note one very serious problem with your proposal.
 
2013-08-08 05:07:07 PM

BojanglesPaladin: mediablitz: Sounds like a good idea to me. Force the parties to spend their own dime.

Force the parties to exchange political promises for money to win elections.


Too much to ask that you read the article.

Not surprising.
 
2013-08-08 05:07:36 PM

BojanglesPaladin: no one has to pay for it.


I've been told, on very good terms, that this claim is amount to slavery, as someone has to put in the work and is not getting paid for it.
 
2013-08-08 05:10:03 PM
LargeCanine: MaudlinMutantMollusk:  Just a point of interest: Steve Peace is one of the guys responsible for Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes

/I have difficulty taking him seriously, for some reason

Return of the Killer Tomatoes had a better tomato.


Did not RTFA, but as soon as I saw 'Peace' show up in the comment thread, I started thinking about 'Rock' Peace and 'Killer Tomatoes'.   Is this really the same guy, or is someone just joking?

/One of the funniest damn movies *ever*.
//and yes, 'Return' had a *much* better tomato - and I *don't* mean FT...
///slashies, threes, etc.
 
2013-08-08 05:12:46 PM
I'd rather see a system where it doesn't matter how you raise the money but you're limited on what you can raise.  Only after you've raised it can you officially buy into the election cycle.  The money is held in trust so you can't secretly add to the coffers.

For a Presidential campaign I like the number of 300 million.  No more, no less.
 
2013-08-08 05:17:40 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Period. No paid advertising on TV or cable, everyone who is running and on the ballot gets it for free. Everyone gets free speech, no one has to pay for it.


It'll take exactly three nanoseconds for the local car dealer to run for office and use the free tv time to advertise his car lot. He might even change his name to something catchy like Joe Chevy-Dodge-Cadillac. This is the basic problem with any public funding... how do you determine objectively who is a serious candidate and who is screwing around having fun wasting public money. Would G. Gordon Liddy get access to public funds? What about Alex Jones? How about the head of the Flat Earth Society or PETA? Look at how many people ran for governor in California when Davis was recalled because there was almost no barrier to entry. Now imagine if everyone one of those people got air time paid for by the public. Eventually there would be no ad time left on tv and you'd have the problem of deciding who got access to the finite amount of ad time available which would lead to endless court battles.
 
2013-08-08 05:23:34 PM
The funny thing is that California is the poster child on how term limits raise special interest spending into the stratosphere.
 
2013-08-08 05:31:49 PM

EngineerAU: BojanglesPaladin: Period. No paid advertising on TV or cable, everyone who is running and on the ballot gets it for free. Everyone gets free speech, no one has to pay for it.

It'll take exactly three nanoseconds for the local car dealer to run for office and use the free tv time to advertise his car lot. He might even change his name to something catchy like Joe Chevy-Dodge-Cadillac. This is the basic problem with any public funding... how do you determine objectively who is a serious candidate and who is screwing around having fun wasting public money. Would G. Gordon Liddy get access to public funds? What about Alex Jones? How about the head of the Flat Earth Society or PETA? Look at how many people ran for governor in California when Davis was recalled because there was almost no barrier to entry. Now imagine if everyone one of those people got air time paid for by the public. Eventually there would be no ad time left on tv and you'd have the problem of deciding who got access to the finite amount of ad time available which would lead to endless court battles.


I'd imagine there would still be requirements for getting on the state ballots. Like requiring signatures of certain % of the registered voters for your party in your state. Hell, even major candidates had trouble getting on the ballots in a few states in 2012 for the GOP.  Not sure how that works out with the timing proposed by BJP, but if joe-schmoe couldn't get a few thousand signatures, he couldn't get access to the time.
 
2013-08-08 05:37:57 PM

EngineerAU: everyone who is running and on the ballot gets it for free


Not to defend BP, but the bolded part narrows things down a bit.  I think here in CA you need a minimum number of signatures, like 5000, to get on the ballot.

So that would slow down the used car dealers, but you'd still get a lot of celebrities and pr0nstars.
 
2013-08-08 05:40:45 PM
The actual solution is to make all campaign donations completely anonymous. Even to the recipient.

i know this sounds counter-intuitive, but research has shown that it works.
 
2013-08-08 05:44:19 PM

EngineerAU: This is the basic problem with any public funding... how do you determine objectively who is a serious candidate and who is screwing around having fun wasting public money.


I do not propose public funding. I favor a system where access to resources held in common (like the public airwaves) is allocated without payment. I think public funding for a political party primary is a bad idea. Despite their earnest efforts to convince the public otherwise, political parties are private organizations, and have no more claim to the political system than any particular individual candidate.

But the control would be whether they have gotten on the ballot. We don't try to "judge who is legitimate", we say only, who is actually running for office and met the requirements by getting on the ballot.
 
2013-08-08 05:45:32 PM

theknuckler_33: Not sure how that works out with the timing proposed by BJP, but if joe-schmoe couldn't get a few thousand signatures, he couldn't get access to the time.


Adverts only available to be run in the 6 months prior to an election. If a candidate only gets on two months before the election, then he is in the pool for the last two months.
 
2013-08-08 05:47:10 PM

El Pachuco: Not to defend BP, but the bolded part narrows things down a bit.


It's OK to defend me :)

And yes. Free airwaves only to people who are on the ballot. Not thinking about it, not forming a focus groups and testing the waters, and not even primary candidates.
 
2013-08-08 05:57:55 PM

BojanglesPaladin: El Pachuco: Not to defend BP, but the bolded part narrows things down a bit.

It's OK to defend me :)

And yes. Free airwaves only to people who are on the ballot. Not thinking about it, not forming a focus groups and testing the waters, and not even primary candidates.


My biggest question with your idea was the "any group seeking a political objective " part. That's too vague. You'd either need to explicitly define everything which then leaves you open for undefined groups being able to run political ads in some kind of loophole (ala 501c4 groups that by definition are not political but really are), or set up some kind of oversight board to determine if ads/groups are political which of course then leaves the entire process open to attacks of political bias.
 
2013-08-08 06:07:02 PM

El Pachuco: EngineerAU: everyone who is running and on the ballot gets it for free

Not to defend BP, but the bolded part narrows things down a bit.  I think here in CA you need a minimum number of signatures, like 5000, to get on the ballot.

So that would slow down the used car dealers, but you'd still get a lot of celebrities and pr0nstars.


Um I believe they did that during the last Recall election and had 139 candidates.
 
2013-08-08 06:12:21 PM

theknuckler_33: My biggest question with your idea was the "any group seeking a political objective " part.


I don't think so. We already have an oversight of which groups are political (there will always be room for interpretation, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.)

Besides, I'm ok with the free airtime being ONLY available to the actual candidates. But since, I guess since PACs and unions have a free speech right as well, we could simply require them to meet the same standards as a ballot - i.e. gather enough signatures.

Not really sure. Details to be refined, suggestions welcome.
 
2013-08-08 06:14:32 PM

EngineerAU: It'll take exactly three nanoseconds for the local car dealer to run for office and use the free tv time to advertise his car lot. He might even change his name to something catchy like Joe Chevy-Dodge-Cadillac. This is the basic problem with any public funding... how do you determine objectively who is a serious candidate and who is screwing around having fun wasting public money. Would G. Gordon Liddy get access to public funds? What about Alex Jones? How about the head of the Flat Earth Society or PETA? Look at how many people ran for governor in California when Davis was recalled because there was almost no barrier to entry. Now imagine if everyone one of those people got air time paid for by the public


Require signature gathering with a minimum threshold based on some percentage of the population (like 0.1% of somesuch).
 
2013-08-08 06:18:28 PM

BojanglesPaladin: theknuckler_33: My biggest question with your idea was the "any group seeking a political objective " part.

I don't think so. We already have an oversight of which groups are political (there will always be room for interpretation, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.)

Besides, I'm ok with the free airtime being ONLY available to the actual candidates. But since, I guess since PACs and unions have a free speech right as well, we could simply require them to meet the same standards as a ballot - i.e. gather enough signatures.

Not really sure. Details to be refined, suggestions welcome.


Can we start with overturning Citizens United?
 
2013-08-08 06:36:49 PM

theknuckler_33: Can we start with overturning Citizens United?


I'm game. I would like to see all political parties, PACs, SuperPACs, Unions, groups from ACORN to AARP, and even religious groups all stripped of big money political advertising capabilities. I have no problem with them advocating per se, but I do not like money being directly tied to the ability to exercise free speech.

I honestly think it is counterproductive to democracy.

I can appreciate that there must be some limiting factor since everyone can't get a TV ad, but money is the wrong way.
 
2013-08-08 06:53:28 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I'm game. I would like to see all political parties, PACs, SuperPACs, Unions, groups from ACORN to AARP, and even religious groups all stripped of big money political advertising capabilities. I have no problem with them advocating per se, but I do not like money being directly tied to the ability to exercise free speech.


Kind of like protecting the 4th Amendment by banning houses.
 
2013-08-08 06:58:49 PM

BMFPitt: Kind of like protecting the 4th Amendment by banning houses.


I'm afraid I don't follow you.
 
2013-08-08 07:41:26 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I'm afraid I don't follow you.


"I don't have a problem with them not being subject to unreasonable searches per se, but I do not like them having private residences to hide things from the police in."
 
2013-08-08 07:49:59 PM

BMFPitt: BojanglesPaladin: I'm game. I would like to see all political parties, PACs, SuperPACs, Unions, groups from ACORN to AARP, and even religious groups all stripped of big money political advertising capabilities. I have no problem with them advocating per se, but I do not like money being directly tied to the ability to exercise free speech.

Kind of like protecting the 4th Amendment by banning houses.

BMFPitt: BojanglesPaladin: I'm afraid I don't follow you.
"I don't have a problem with them not being subject to unreasonable searches per se, but I do not like them having private residences to hide things from the police in."


....

I'm sorry. I'm still not following you. I can see you are drawing a parallel to free speech, and it has something to do with constitutional amendments and unreasonable search and seizure...Why are getting rid of people's houses?

I'm sure I'm just spacing on something, it's probably not your fault. I'm taking this as a sign it's time for me to call it a weekend.

Everyone have a nice evening.
 
2013-08-08 09:11:13 PM

BMFPitt: BojanglesPaladin: I'm afraid I don't follow you.

"I don't have a problem with them not being subject to unreasonable searches per se, but I do not like them having private residences to hide things from the police in."


Got a big fan of money=speech here, I see.
 
2013-08-08 09:23:32 PM

Infernalist: If you ever want to get rid of the 'for rent' politicians that thrive on being openly bribed by lobbyists, then you have to get rid of ALL private funding for public elections.

Each politician gets a set amount of money and a certain amount of allotted air time for their ads on TV and in print.  They're not allowed to spend their own money, nor accept donations of cash from citizens or companies/corporations.

Want to help your candidate out?  Donate your time, not your money.

Until then, we deserve our system of open bribery in government.


This. Good luck getting that approved, though. Both parties enjoy the benefits of lobbyists
 
2013-08-08 09:43:35 PM

Infernalist: If you ever want to get rid of the 'for rent' politicians that thrive on being openly bribed by lobbyists, then you have to get rid of ALL private funding for public elections.

Each politician gets a set amount of money and a certain amount of allotted air time for their ads on TV and in print.  They're not allowed to spend their own money, nor accept donations of cash from citizens or companies/corporations.

Want to help your candidate out?  Donate your time, not your money.

Until then, we deserve our system of open bribery in government.


Who gets to choose the candidates that get government money? The old guard already entrenched right?

If you fund everyone 4 brazillion candidates will run. If you try and pick and choose only the candidates 'approved' by the current power brokers have a chance.

Let them use their own money but make sure they have to say where it all comes from.
 
2013-08-08 09:49:47 PM

machoprogrammer: Infernalist: If you ever want to get rid of the 'for rent' politicians that thrive on being openly bribed by lobbyists, then you have to get rid of ALL private funding for public elections.

Each politician gets a set amount of money and a certain amount of allotted air time for their ads on TV and in print.  They're not allowed to spend their own money, nor accept donations of cash from citizens or companies/corporations.

Want to help your candidate out?  Donate your time, not your money.

Until then, we deserve our system of open bribery in government.

This. Good luck getting that approved, though. Both parties enjoy the benefits of lobbyists


The problem is that the bribery is not open enough. Every dollar should be trackable to some person.
 
2013-08-08 10:35:39 PM
This will probably work about as well as one of Steve Peace's other big ideas, electricity deregulation. fark that guy.
 
2013-08-09 01:04:59 AM

Geotpf: BojanglesPaladin: The BojanglesPaladin Magic Wand Solutions to money in campaigns TM:

Henceforth and forevermore be it resolved that no broadcaster using the public airwaves held in trust in the commons may sell or exchange for consideration time, access, or advertising of any kind to any political organization, candidate, or affiliated group, be it union, PAC, SuperPAC or any group seeking a political objective.

Further be it resolved that all broadcasters under licensure and regulatory oversight from the FCC shall, during the period of 6 months prior to any local, state, or federal election shall provide at no charge and without any consideration an equal allotment of time, access, or advertising to any political candidate appearing on the relevant ballot in said election. This equal allotment shall constitute no less than 5% and no more than 10% of the broadcasters existing advertising schedule, and no less than 30% must be during 'prime-time' hours.

Period. No paid advertising on TV or cable, everyone who is running and on the ballot gets it for free. Everyone gets free speech, no one has to pay for it.

Simple. Effective. Entirely unlikely to ever be implemented without a magic wand.

It's blatantly unconstitutional, to note one very serious problem with your proposal.


I also see a problem in that cable and internet broadcasters wouldn't be subject to these restrictions, since they aren't on "the public airwaves". And since you'll be opening it up to 'free' airtime, every office down to dogcatcher will have a passel of candidates wanting their chunk. Probably by the time you get done, everyone will get about 10 seconds overall on each channel, spread over the entire campaign. And then you have to have somebody deciding which offices in which locales are entitled to be carried on each broadcast channel (is that San Diego School Board candidate entitled to carriage on a Los Angeles station that can be picked up in San Diego? A law like that could spawn as many pages of regs as Obamacare.
 
2013-08-09 01:10:09 AM

Dinjiin: EngineerAU: It'll take exactly three nanoseconds for the local car dealer to run for office and use the free tv time to advertise his car lot. He might even change his name to something catchy like Joe Chevy-Dodge-Cadillac. This is the basic problem with any public funding... how do you determine objectively who is a serious candidate and who is screwing around having fun wasting public money. Would G. Gordon Liddy get access to public funds? What about Alex Jones? How about the head of the Flat Earth Society or PETA? Look at how many people ran for governor in California when Davis was recalled because there was almost no barrier to entry. Now imagine if everyone one of those people got air time paid for by the public

Require signature gathering with a minimum threshold based on some percentage of the population (like 0.1% of somesuch).


And the people with money will be the ones who can afford to pay to get those signatures.
 
2013-08-09 02:24:33 AM

EngineerAU: BojanglesPaladin: Period. No paid advertising on TV or cable, everyone who is running and on the ballot gets it for free. Everyone gets free speech, no one has to pay for it.

It'll take exactly three nanoseconds for the local car dealer to run for office and use the free tv time to advertise his car lot. He might even change his name to something catchy like Joe Chevy-Dodge-Cadillac. This is the basic problem with any public funding... how do you determine objectively who is a serious candidate and who is screwing around having fun wasting public money. Would G. Gordon Liddy get access to public funds? What about Alex Jones? How about the head of the Flat Earth Society or PETA? Look at how many people ran for governor in California when Davis was recalled because there was almost no barrier to entry. Now imagine if everyone one of those people got air time paid for by the public. Eventually there would be no ad time left on tv and you'd have the problem of deciding who got access to the finite amount of ad time available which would lead to endless court battles.


I'd much rather deal with the logistical problems with public funding and shared tv time than the rampant corruption and bribery we have now.
 
2013-08-09 10:12:31 AM

Baryogenesis: I'd much rather deal with the logistical problems with public funding and shared tv time than the rampant corruption and bribery we have now.


So much THIS.

If we can split the atom, create microscopic black holes, and map galaxies billions of light years away then we should certainly be able figure out how to divide up money and ad time between political candidates.

But you can add it to the *very* long list of things that WILL NOT change, since the folks making the rules are the same ones reaping the largest windfalls.
 
2013-08-09 12:23:54 PM

BojanglesPaladin: The BojanglesPaladin Magic Wand Solutions to money in campaigns TM:

Henceforth and forevermore be it resolved that no broadcaster using the public airwaves held in trust in the commons may sell or exchange for consideration time, access, or advertising of any kind to any political organization, candidate, or affiliated group, be it union, PAC, SuperPAC or any group seeking a political objective.

Further be it resolved that all broadcasters under licensure and regulatory oversight from the FCC shall, during the period of 6 months prior to any local, state, or federal election shall provide at no charge and without any consideration an equal allotment of time, access, or advertising to any political candidate appearing on the relevant ballot in said election. This equal allotment shall constitute no less than 5% and no more than 10% of the broadcasters existing advertising schedule, and no less than 30% must be during 'prime-time' hours.

Period. No paid advertising on TV or cable, everyone who is running and on the ballot gets it for free. Everyone gets free speech, no one has to pay for it.

Simple. Effective. Entirely unlikely to ever be implemented without a magic wand.


And pretty much how things are already done in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_political_broadcast
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report