Heard an interesting idea on Charlie Rose last night

So this Harvard professor was talking to Charlie Rose about money in elections, corruption, etc. and Charlie asked him what he would do... The guy basically described a program in which a small portion of taxpayer money is redirected to campaign finance and that it be distributed via "democracy vouchers" that every eligible voter would recieve to donate to any campaign they see fit. At $50 per person, that puts $6 Billion into the election cycle - which is roughly 2.5 times the total of the last election cycle(all of this according to the Harvard dude, sorry cant remember his name). People would still be able to donate more of their own money to whomever they wish, although in this system there would be a limit per person and presumably corporations would not be people.

That's a big idea, and not one likely to happen anytime soon. But it touches on a fundamental problem in our system in which representatives are currently reliant on a small group of wealthy donors rather than the entire population of voters as intended.

I think we can all agree that moneyed interests are far too potent in our political system, what do you think about this idea or one similer? If you dont like this idea, why?

$6.5 Billion? That seems excessive, every debate would be like a rock concert with pyrotechnics. To spend that much they would really have to fancy up the campaign venues. How many votes could they buy?

If you want to get the moneyed interests out of the system, you have to get the money out of the system. Each candidate should be limited to a certain amount Maximum from all sources combined, that would help to even the field.

We all know that the Big Money candidates usually win, you know why? becasue the same big money candidates behind Obama are the same ones behind Romney. JP Morgue, Goldman Sucks, Morgan Stanley they are all there.



Barack Obama (D)

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

The number could be anything really, but I kind of like the general idea. I mean, it costs money to run an effective campaign - that will likely never change. The idea in the OP just shifts politicians dependancy for the money from the big-time donors (who make up less than 1% of the population but also account for most donated money) to the voters. Shifting that dependancy seems to be the key imo.

ND, could we have the source for your table and info?

The Ruiner said:

ND, could we have the source for your table and info?

Click to expand...

You can verify all the info at the Federal Election commission website, all info is publicly available. Let me know If you find errors.

id simply have a tv show on all the big channels (or some special network everyone can see (dunno how that is over there)

where all the candidates would come and debate.

and may the best person win.

1) remove all electronic ballots (paper only)
2) remove electoral college popular vote only
3) remove all campaign donations from corporations (corps are not people)
4) remove all lobying
5) remove all earmarks
6) remove all subsidies to corporations that make a profit
7) increase tax on all goods manufactured in other countries
legalize mj and hemp and tax it like alcohol.
9) $ to car companies who make cars that do not use fossil fuels
10) increase $ to small companies who manufacture 100% in USA

its really not that complicated.
ohh and allow bush tax cuts for rich to expire and tax the millionaires more.

oldschooltofu said:

1) remove all electronic ballots (paper only)
2) remove electoral college popular vote only
3) remove all campaign donations from corporations (corps are not people)
4) remove all lobying
5) remove all earmarks
6) remove all subsidies to corporations that make a profit
7) increase tax on all goods manufactured in other countries
legalize mj and hemp and tax it like alcohol.
9) $ to car companies who make cars that do not use fossil fuels
10) increase $ to small companies who manufacture 100% in USA

its really not that complicated.
ohh and allow bush tax cuts for rich to expire and tax the millionaires more.

Click to expand...

#6 is an incentive for companies to fail, #7 invites a war to start, and will leave the shelves of half the big box stores empty of product.#1 has CHADS problem, #10 leaves out the big corporations, is government favoritism and is contrary to the constitution. The Bush tax cuts are mostly cuts in the capital gains rate, which won't really have that much of an effect since people are pulling out of the stock market in droves. What it will do though is tax the middle class who have their nest eggs tied up into 401K plans.

Other than those minor quibbles, i like your ideas.

If a company that is making a profit fails because it is not receiving welfare... let it fail.

Most all other countries already use tariffs, they just call them something else... like "added value tax" or the government backs the companies to keep costs low and run others out of business.

A chads problem is better than voting machines with severe security issues owned by persons involved in politics.

If you are invested in a 401k you have already fallen for one of the earlier scams from the 80's

really? exxon/mobile with fail without subsidies? i highly doubt it

hanging chads are not as big a problem as republicans fixing the 2000 and prob the 2004 election. and yes they did fix it electronically. one of the programers is whisleblowing on his company that created the virus for the republicans. just google it...pages of info.

the millionairs are the ones bennifiting from current laws. they need to pay more in taxes. they even agree to pay more in taxes. dont understand why the republicans dont see this as an option. 30+ fortune 500 companies have not paid any corp taxes 2008-2010..

Id say just bring back glass steagle and end superpacs and we'd be kind of back to where we were at before 2000 when corporations had at least equal rights to people as opposed to more.

But ultimately, If we are talking about new revolutionary forms of government and reform then Id advocate for a direct democracy ala Switzerland using new technology and having actual citizen representatives. We could even have people vote online on issues every single day, using new FREELY available open source technology this could also be secure and encrypted with fraud being a virtual impossibility.

One thing we can do immediately however is elect Ron Paul