HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS TO BETTER PROTECT THE
PUBLIC? WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF THESE CHANGES EVER BEING PASSED BY
CONGRESS? WHY?

Hi,

If I had the ability to rewrite laws, I'd adopt a national and
expanded version of the so-called "clean election" laws.  Ideally,
these laws would have several components:

-- Candidates could get most if not all of their campaigns financed
through public money.

-- In order to get the public money, candidates would be prohibited
from accepting campaign donations, or donations above a certain
amount.

-- Independent campaigning by organizations on behalf of candidates
would be strictly limited.

I would also do something (I'm not sure what) to encourage candidates
to hold debates and/or make numerous public appearances.

You can find explanations of such laws on the following page:

Do Campaign Finance Laws Make a Difference?
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/900cam.htm

Such a procedure would limit the influence that special interests have
on political office holders.

The main problem I have with such a proposal is that it would limit
First Amendment freedoms to speak out on behalf of candidates.  A good
argument can be made that if I want to use my own money to speak out
in a campaign (and I'm not a candidate), I should be able to do so. 
On the other hand, a candidate can become beholden to special
interests even if the interests independently campaign for the
candidate (i.e., without input from the candidate).

Although variations of this proposal are being implemented in some
states, I don't expect it to be adopted on a national level beyond the
limited version of such an approach used in presidential elections. 
Such proposals not only raise constitutional questions, but they also
risk rejection by a public that isn't too keen on having public money
spent for private campaigns.  Also, campaigns for major office have
become so expensive that public financing would not come cheap.

Best wishes in your studies of the American political system,

mvguy-ga




Google search term: campaign finance laws
://www.google.com/search?q=campaign+finance+laws

I would suggest an alternative to the unconstitutional suggestion
above....

Simply requiring INSTANT NOTIFICATION of all campaign contributions
via the internet would solve many of the problems campaign finance
legislation laws attempt to address.

If the public/media were given access to each contributer AND amount
given to a candidate, any special treatment given to a contributer
would be in the open for all to see.

In the 2000 Presidential campaign, the only Presidential candidate to
provide instant web notification of campaign contributions was
President George Bush.

If one really wants to remove the special interests from our
government, one should limit the power the government has over our
lives.  As a government grows, it restricts more and more freedom from
individuals.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

- Benjamin Franklin, 1759


The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government
to gain ground.    - Thomas Jefferson

TexasTinCup

Another way around the constitutional difficulties is to have ZERO
notification, not instant notification of donations.  Rather than
allowing people to give money in public, which still encourages
politicians to do donors' bidding, one could allow donors to give as
much as they want to politicians.

However, all money would be given through an anonymous clearinghouse.

It would work like this:

* Donor sends a check to the clearinghouse and instructs the
clearinghouse to direct the money to Candidate A

* Each week or month, the clearinghouse would send Candidate A a check
for all total money donated during that period

* Donor can then tell Candidate A that he gave money, but the
candidate will NEVER KNOW for sure if he really gave anything at all. 
After all, the candidate gets on check each week/month with all his
total donations and can't be sure who gave what.

* Thus, Americans may give as much money for political speech as they
please, but they cannot buy influence.

  - Ben