|
Unintended consequences
Monday, Feb 1, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller * The BGA’s Andy Shaw writes about the retirement of U.S. Rep. Steve Israel…
Shaw uses the column to push for reforms like matching small contributions with public funds. OK, that’s not a bad idea. * But he’s missing something important. The reason Israel and others have to spend so much time raising money is because of campaign contribution caps. Reformers love caps and even pushed hard for their imposition in Illinois. But caps mean politicians have to raise the same amount of money that they need to remain competitive from lots more people. That’s one reason Illinois’ state caps are higher than the federal caps. It perverts the process by putting way too much emphasis on fundraising. Caps haven’t worked. If they had, don’t you think we’d notice a move away from monied interests since caps were imposed? It’s been just the opposite. Also keep in mind that Democrats here are now fighting with one hand tied behind their back because Gov. Rauner and a couple of his pals can flood the zone with unlimited money (and they’ve already started), while Democrats not immediately targeted are forced to live within the caps. We need a better way.
|
 |
|
|
- Union Leader - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 10:39 am:
Citizens United has adversely affected elections and they are now perverted to the point of being obscene and if I could think of another word, I would use it.
- LizPhairTax - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 10:40 am:
Shaw posted this on a page with a big, yellow DONATE button.
I clicked it. Then I clicked “other amount” and nothing stopped me so I put in $100,000,000.
How about BGA self-impose the caps they want everyone else to live by?
- Union Leader - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 10:41 am:
@KLizPhairTax…
Very funny, you made me choke on my coffee.
- Not quite a majority - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 10:43 am:
There is a better way but the SCOTUS believes that money is speech and until such time as that is no longer the case, you can’t impose a limit on spending. This whole ‘the system will shake it out’ business that believes disclosure will account for limitations is hogwash since we have neither. I won’t go into a ‘banana republic’ tirade, but it’s obvious there is a solution — the powers that are don’t want to go there.
- Not Rich - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 10:55 am:
loved LIZFAIR’s post.. Its nice to show how phony Shaw and the BGA have become.. Would love to hear the BGA’s plan for the Rauner?Griffin money..
- Union Leader - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 11:01 am:
-Not Rich….
That’s easy to answer. BGA will take the money and be the “legitimate’ mouthpiece for Rauner.
- Gruntled University Employee - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 11:15 am:
IMHO I’d rather see publicly funded elections. I know they’d be expensive but in the long run, unstacking the deck in favor of those that have money would benefit the masses. We reward the candidate that can raise and spend the most money by electing them and then somehow expect them to be “fiscally responsibly” I’d rather see what a candidate can do with a limited amount of campaign money, show us how innovative you can be on a budget, that’s a candidate that I could support.
- Sue - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 11:23 am:
The anti- republican bias here is regrettable. Unions including SEIU, NEA, IFT, AFSMCE to name a few have spent tens of millions of dollars here in Ilinois and hundreds of millions nationally to influence the outcome of elections. But Dems never seem to understand that this spending is just as wrong as is corporate spending and individuals who donate to Republican focused PACS. If you want to complain at least be genuine about it
- Union Leader - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 11:35 am:
As a proud Democrat, YES, I do understand the spending is wrong. But, unions had to start to spend to keep up with the big corporations and their lobbyists. Do you remember why unions had to be formed in the first place? If corporations had only not taken advantage of their employees, unions wouldn’t exist.
- Sue (the other one) - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 11:43 am:
Where does all this money go? TV ads.
The broadcast media is the number one beneficiary of all this campaign cash and they will fight to the death to preserve the system.
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 11:48 am:
Until recently, Democrats had a huge fundraising advantage through unions over Republicans. Then the Citizens United case leveled the playing field and Republicans became competitive financially now that the handcuffs are taken off.
What bothers me most is the fact that campaigns now often lose the message to an outside PAC. Yet no one complaints about this unintended negative result.
Rep. Scott Drury filed a multi-million dollar suit against his opponent, Dr. Mark Neerhof, over an ad created by the Proft Liberty PAC, claiming it was false. Who is paying the legal bills for Neerhof, who had nothing to do with the ad or the allegedly false message complained of?
That to me is the more chilling effect of candidacy at the moment. Who wants to spend thousands of dollars defending your person and your campaign for the actions of an outside PAC you have no control over?
- DuPage Saint - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 12:15 pm:
Never happen but just imagine only registered voters could contribute. No unions no corporations np PAC and in addition could only contribute to candidates you could vote for. No California money going to Illinois or vice versa. No out of distrct donations
- Anonymous - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 1:03 pm:
DuPage Saint @ 12:15:
Very interesting idea. But what about businesses that reside within the candidate’s district, and the people who work for those businesses, seems like they would not be represented. Your idea, plus districts that don’t look like they were drawn on an etch-a-sketch by a chimp on meth, and you may have something.
- Anonymous - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 1:24 pm:
×cough× Bernie 2016 ×cough×
- thechampaignlife - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 2:28 pm:
===We need a better way.=== Kickstarter? /s
Seriously, though, smaller districts would help. If we combined the Senate and House and added seats so that there are no more than 60,000 people per district, we would have 215 districts. Harder to “buy” an election with a smaller voter pool, more of whom would know the candidates.
- Anonymous - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 2:50 pm:
Illinois Democrats seemed pleased with the rules when they were passing them and enjoying an advantage under them.
Now some understand what it’s like to be on the other end of a skewed playing field, and they don’t seem to like the rules as much.
- Bemac - Monday, Feb 1, 16 @ 11:33 pm:
Every round of campaign finance reforms becomes the new horrible, corrupt system destroying our politics that needs to be reformed a few years later, and so on.