Most of our "problems" could be solved very easily..

[SoCalDem]

Public financing of all campaigns is the answer.

The way it is now, politicians are "forced" to raise obscene amounts of money ALL THE TIME.. From the minute they are elected, instead on concentrating on the things they promised to "fix", they are obsessed with raising funds for their NEXT campaign.

We all know "where" they get their money.. They can couch it any way they like, but the fact is obvious. Big business lobbyists make sure that their "needs" are tended to, and in return, our legislators must make their deal with the "devil", and lots of very bad laws are enacted in the process..

If there were true public funding, and HUGE fines and punishment (including expulsion) for being "lobbied by business", laws that actually favored the masses would not be so hard to achieve..

Does anyone really believe that "our business" is very important to legislators??

Back to the moolah...

They need huge piles of cash to BUY airtime on tv and radio stations who are GIVEN FOR FREE, the airwaves .. The fact that they rake in humongous sums of money every election season should be an outrage to us all.. They take the money from the politicians who took the money from the corporations/lobbyists/bigmoney donors, so they can craft a message to the public, that will trick us into voting against oour own interests , in most cases.

The pols could still take small donations, but that money would have to be spent locally (where it was raised), and would be for things like signs, telemarketing, and campaign events..

Without the NEED for big bucks to buy the ads, we would all be better off.. They could spend their time reading the bills before they vote on them.. They could be in touch with their constituents..

There are many "unused" channels, that could be designated for each candidate. They could have ..say 2 hours per week, to "say their piece"..ALL legitimate candidates would have equal time, and interviews with the candidates would be allowed only if the opposing side had their say too..(Buh-byeee FOX)..

If a station DOES insist on carrying only one side, they would be forced to LABEL their network as a partisan advertising wing of whatever party they represent...and then an equally partisan venue would be opened for the opposition.


Once a month they would debate, with questions from REAL people.. Every community has a debate coach available who would be more than happy to "moderate"..

The whole "staged" set up that we have now, is toxic to democracy.

We hire these people every few years, and they should be working for us...and accountable TO us.

Cosporations are NOT "persons", and they need to be stripped of personhood. Companies who are not willing to pay taxes here, should be banned from selling their stuff here too.

Lobbying by "real" groups who espouse issues relating to the environment, health, education or anything relating to the public good, would be allowed to lobby congress in an OPEN venue...

The way it is now is BAD..and it needs to stop..

We have two governments..the one we "see" and the secret one that we never get to see. The really nasty stuff goes on behind closed doors..

We need those doors opened..

[Solon]

1. I agree, Public Financing and free air time on the 4 major networks...

that is what we need.

[lslaux]

2. I agree with everything you say.

My solution is to have the federal government completely finance public radio and television, like they used to many years ago. In return for this full financing, These stations would replace their nauseating fundraisers with budgeted time on air for candidates in national, state and local elections. Eliminate the necessity to buy time on commercial radio and TV and in newspapers and have the newspapers report only on what was said during these candidate's presentations. Would be nice to have a "free" press ask questions of the candidates too. This might make public radio and TV truly "public" again.

[shraby]

3. I'd like to add that

they shouldn't be allowed to campaign except for X months before an election.

[Make7]

4. I wonder

I can't help but wonder why it hasn't been done already if "most of our 'problems' could be solved" so easily.

[SoCalDem]

5. Because "our" problems are not seen to BE problems

by the "ruling class".. They like it just fine the way it is, because it suits THEIR agenda..

[Make7]

6. Then maybe...

it can't "be solved very easily."

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

10. well

Anything that might take a little hard work isn't worth it anyway.

Like someone else (kinda) said in here - the system is the problem. As it stands only a Repub or a Democrat can/will get electoral college votes in a Presidental campaign. There's no room for any other choices, and at times that leads to people voting for the lesser of 2 evils rather then the person best suited for the job.

[Make7]

13. A little hard work?

I'm not saying that the system is not the problem, that it doesn't need to be fixed, or that it is not worth fixing. I'm just saying that it isn't an easy problem to fix. It'll take a lot of effort by a lot a people. To suggest that most of our problems could easily be fixed is underestimating the extent of the problem and what needs to be done to make any significant long-lasting changes. If it were so damn easy, why is it still a problem?

Make7

[Q]

7. Could the 'problem' actually be that...

...both parties are part of the problem? Neither side wants to give up the advantage of corporate bucks...nor do they want to admit that they exchange legislation and laws favorable to industry (including the corporate media) as 'payback' for those bucks.

- Democrats needs to finally admit it: our government is hopelessly corrupt and both parties are complicit.

[SoCalDem]

8. Ding Ding.. you win the cookie

Greed and corruption know no philosophical boundaries.. Money corrupts..

I would venture a guess that if (and when?) lobbying and corporate donations are outlawed, that a lot of politicians will "retire"..

I hate the fact that some blather on and on about "public service", when in actuality, lots enter "service" rather poor, and exit wealthy beyond most expectations.. That does not happen on a congress/senate salary, folks..

Public financing would also open up the field to people of modest means, but expansive ideas :)

[merh]

20. Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.

Term limits and federal funds to the states appropriated equally through out the states.

We have a senator that has been in office for ever. I would suggest that a majority of people cannot personally stand the man and they are bored with him. BUT, they know that if the vote for someone else and he gets booted, they lose the power and connections he has in the senated and the funds to his area will be cut.

Navy contracts at the ship building corpation will disappear, federal funds will be diverted, etc. So they vote him in every time, without opposition, and he embarasses us and he bores us and we don't trust him and he has Raygun hair.

TERM LIMITS, please!

[Bandit]

14. You can't possibly be so naive

:shrug: I suspect other motives.

[Make7]

22. No, I can't.

But I have a right to be.

Actually I was just trying to make a point. Kinda my way of saying to SoCalDem the same thing you are saying to me. (Well, not the part about suspecting other motives.) See post #13.

Make7

[Baltimoreboy]

9. How do you keep private money out of it?

How do you keep my organization (as yet, nonexistent) from raising a billion dollars and running ads everywhere that attack one of the candidates?

[SoCalDem]

11. It would be against the law to run advocacy ads

The candidates would already have ample FREE time, so you can keep your money :)

[Baltimoreboy]

15. Hmmm, no free speech concerns there or anything

Come on, so I can't advocate on a position that you support or oppose?

How can you stop that? I'll just buy a website, newspaper, TV station or radio station and use the freedom of the press exemption.

[SoCalDem]

18. Buy TEN stations...just be prepared to show both sides :)

The fairness doctrine should be reinstated.. It worked just fine for many years.. What upset the (bad) apple cart was when it was eliminated and the Murdochs of the world, skewed everything in one direction.. Free speech should be for everyone..not just rich people.:)

With a shortened campaign season, public financing, and free airtime, there should be plenty of opportunities for the candidates to speak for themselves..

Oops.. lots of "mouthpieces and butt kissers" might end up unemployment statistics.. oh well.. walmart is always hiring :)

[Baltimoreboy]

19. What about newspapers, magazines and websites?

Are you going to try and mandate control of them as well?

[SoCalDem]

21. That's fine.. (and I think it was even under the fairness doctrine)

TV and radio are the formats that are most vulnerable to propagande and lies.. Most people don't read much anyway..:) Knock yourself out :)

[Baltimoreboy]

23. What about this?

The NRA was looking into creating its own newsroom and going for the 1st amendment protection as a news organization. Still OK?

What happens as the web gradually supplants TV, which is happening?

[SoCalDem]

24. NRA is different because they ARE guns.. We know exactly their stance..

As long as they label what they are and who funds them, I have no issue..

I am for "sunshine"..
..

[Baltimoreboy]

25. They are more than just guns

But that's not the point. I don't see how these regulations can stop private organizations from spending billions influencing opinion.

Free newspapers abound in my community. What's to stop Scaife from doing a free conservative daily nationwide and delivering it to every home? Under these rules, nothing. And under the Constitution, much the same.

[Make7]

17. What about F 9/11?

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

12. Couple ideas

Stop all TV ads period. TV Ads have become nothing but propaganda, and mud-slinging tools and are now useless.


Require newspapers and networks to endorse a canidate, and do it on the front page or at the top of their broadcasts, or abstain from reporting anything about the campaign/election but the results. It's too easy now for a paper or network to "not endorse" a canidate while giving biased coverage to help a canidate and use the "we didn't endorse" blanket to get away with it.

That will also stop the "liberal media bias" and "faux news lies" crap.

[Baltimoreboy]

16. Freedom of the press

REQUIRE newspapers to endorse? Did you read the Constitution recently?