The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Campaign Finance Reform and Unintended Consequences

Re: Campaign Finance Reform and Unintended Consequences

Neocon — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:06:58 -0000

And Runasim aside........my point is that while Barak Obama has opened the eyes of the world to the potential to the internet and the amounts of money it can generate, my true angst is not with presidential campagins so much as it is with PAC's and the mind boggling influence they potentially could generate with huge and I do mean huge donations that could come in from the world over.

Regulations read.................read my above post. Ive actually researched this issue and the can of worms waiting to be realized from it is immense.

Live in France. Hate John Kerry? Want to assassinate his character.......contribute to the Swift Boat PAC. Thats certainly what they needed more of was more money so they could spend more money on assassinating a fine Senators character to win an election. I only use this for illustraions purposes............Im not advocating the French hate John Kerry or Democrats.

So I am opposed to this type of funding for all candidates and all PAC's. period.

Re: Campaign Finance Reform and Unintended Consequences

Neocon — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:04:32 -0000

Runasim

This is an age-old method of political attack, character assasintio. and creating conspiracy theories.

And so you turn right around and use it on me. Essentially in your own words assassinating my character.

Smooth.

Re: Campaign Finance Reform and Unintended Consequences

runasim — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:31:36 -0000

THE LATEST CONSPIRACY THEORY

Neocon,

There is no absolutely fool proof system for campaign contributions and never has been.

What's to prevent Martians from contributing cash through intermediaries?
The origin of PayPal payments can be traced, btw, as PayPal payments are NOT
anonymous.

How is anyone to know that, you, yourself aren't acting as an intermediary for a foreign or alien power? It's certainly POSSIBLE. Should we worry? Should you have to prove that it's not true?

This is an age-old method of political attack, character assasintio. and creating conspiracy theories. First, create doubt and suspicion by raising unfounded possiblities. Then, demand that the accused prove that the possible is not true.
In the meantime, some mud has been flung, and there is always the chance that some will stick.

NO, neocon, It's up to you to prove that foreigners have actually conttributed to Obama's campaign, Only then, should this be taken seriously.

This is so NOT subtle.

Re: Campaign Finance Reform and Unintended Consequences

Neocon — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:49:04 -0000

Actually your wrong. When a donation is made to Obama.com it is made via paypal or some other contribution and as such the ip address that refers the cash to Obama.com is paypal and not your IP address in Somalia.

Foreign nationals can contribue to pacs but they just cannot have any influence or say in what or how the pac spends its money or on what they spend their money. Thus as we are going to see PACS are going to gain more and more overseas money as the pacs turn increasingly to internet contributions.

Look at the mindboggling amounts of money that have been raised so far.

Also if memory serves me that democrats ended up spending almost identical amounts in the 2004 election campaign even though Bush garnered his war chest much earlier then did Kerry.

That being said I do not care who is grabbing the cash. Funding campaigns that open up to worldwide web donations is a BAD Idea. The only reason either side is not moaning about it right now is because they dont give a sheet about you and me. They just want the money.

The more...........the merrier. Its a bad idea.

Re: Campaign Finance Reform and Unintended Consequences

Jim_Satterfield — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:41:42 -0000

Actually, when someone makes a contribution the IP address they are doing it from can easily be traced so that contributions from out of the U.S. can be regulated. While there are technical ways around it your average contributor isn't going to do it.

Re: Campaign Finance Reform and Unintended Consequences

JSpencer — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:11:37 -0000

My response would be similar to that of aba23. The internet has really encouraged many more Americans to participate and feel they are part of the process, not only with regard to raising funds to support their candidate of choice, but also when it comes to giving them a voice- in venues like this for instance. I suppose there is the danger of too much democracy, but somehow I'm not worried about that.

As for the amount of influence on the elections outside the USA - this has always been a factor one way or another. Remember a certain speech released by Bin Laden immediately prior to a certain election? Elections can be tipped as much by that sort of thing as they can by big bux. That said, the idea of a level playing field moneywise has a certain appeal, that way the message becomes the important factor, rather than the frequency of the message.

By the way, I don't recall having seen expressions of concern among rightward leaning folks over the disparities of campaign funding back when GWB was accumulating his war chest. Funny no?

Re: Campaign Finance Reform and Unintended Consequences

aba23 — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:24:33 -0000

Neocon may have a point that the Internet could allow for easier skirting of contribution regulation, but that ignores the upside--it also facilitates more broadbased, legitimate, individualized--dare I say "grassroots"--contributions as well. If the latter positive (more democratic campaign financing) outweighs the negative (more efficient regulatory evasion), well at least that's progress.

Re: Campaign Finance Reform and Unintended Consequences

Neocon — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:27:06 -0000

When you solicit money via the telephone most likely you are not calling people in France, Belgium, Indonesia, or China to ask them for their support.

The internet allows people to simply look up a website and press a couple buttons and they have as effectively as you and I cast a vote. There is a huge difference. HUGE. Russian Mafia figures can give a candidate millions.

The worst thing that ever happened for campaign finance reform is Barak Obama and his internet campaign. The can of worms opened has been immense. The consequences profound and the impact obvious. Without the internet Barak Obama would never have gained the funds to make a decent run for the presidency. Things most definetely would be different today without the internet.

After having said the above they will come to the conclusion that the internet giving is a great thing because in fact we now have a black politician running for the presidency so it must be a GOOD thing.

Of course because Barak Obama is your candidate (generic you.......not intended to point out anyone in particular) then of course the concept of soliciting donations from the internet is a great idea. However in the future it will be available to all candidates as well. Now we can see the funding of KKK members or I hate Jews members or whatever members gaining immense support from a world wide audience that does not always share our points of views about things nor do they necessarily have the interests of America in mind.

Internet funding is a special interest nightmare or watershed. Depending on how you look at it. If people can steal your credit information online, hack into your computer they can make it look like they are a little ole lady from Milwaukee donating to Senator X or President Candidate Y very easily.

Re: Campaign Finance Reform and Unintended Consequences

runasim — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 05:10:31 -0000

It looks like no laws can stop the flow of special interest money to lawmakers.
We are truly in a dark place. Business was as much in bed with government, at taxpayers' expense, during the Gilded Age, but then, the people were unted in voicing complaints.

Now, beginning with Reagan, the government has succeeded in selling, and a compliant public has bougnt, the notion that this kind of moral corruption is just fine, as long as 'my' Party is winning. People are no longer united in their complaints and demands for reforms.

It warms my heart to see that even some Dem. lawmakers are complaining about Obama's anti-lobbyist position. His opponents are becoming absolutely paranoid with their TPM's (Somalia will elect out president, etc.). Despite the loopholes in his own campaign fundraising, I take the criticisms to be a good sign. At least he is focusing everyone's attention in the right direction, Maybe competitive shaming will do a little of what no law can do. Even though revelations come heavily wrapped in scurrilous,false accusations, if lawmakers and candidates are nervous, some effect could seep to the right places. Let them be nervous and feel they are being watched.

Re: Campaign Finance Reform and Unintended Consequences

TheFrequentPoster — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:09:06 -0000

I don't see why soliciting money via computer-to-computer transmissions is any different than doing so via person-to-person transmissions. Both are done over the same telecommunications network. The first is called "the Internet," and the second is called "a phone call." Someone can just as easily call in a contribution from Somalia as transmit the information from one computer to another.

Re: Campaign Finance Reform and Unintended Consequences

Neocon — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:19:48 -0000

Im not sure that there will ever be campaign finance reform ever again if we allow politicians to solicit funds via the internet. People in Somalia can effect the outcomes of local elections in Montana with the simple push of a button.

While ingenious and clever the fact is that Obama's has become a world wide campaign in which people are actually beginning to feel as if they can influence the outcome of our elections and that they can drive the dynamics of how our country works to the potential detriment of the USA and her own special interests.

One only has to look at a recent article here at TMV to see what Im talking about.

America’s Image Revives; 84 Percent of French Favor Obama