Suppose we took all the money out of politics and every major candidate gets an equal amount

[NNN0LHI]

How do we make up for the constant daily barrage of Rush Limbaugh and the others just like him on right wing hate radio?

Or how do we fight back against several FOX cable news channels which are just another arm of the GOP pumping out Republican propaganda 24/7? Dems don't have anything comparable to a FOX news. Not even close.

How do we fight back against that kind of stuff without an edge in money? Any ideas?

Reason I ask this is I don't really recall a lot of discussion about there being too much money in politics until we found someone like President Obama who is really good at fundraising. Probably the best I have seen.

Why the uproar all of a sudden now?

Don

[Vincardog]

1. break up clear channel.

[NNN0LHI]

2. FOX news?

[WingDinger]

10. Dog is right. Clear channel is a hegemony, and why Johnny Cash flipped off COUNTRY MUSIC.

[NNN0LHI]

13. OK. Break up Clear Channel and then we can talk about taking money out of politics

Hows that?

Don

[Scuba]

3. Suppose we took all the money out of politics and gave each registered voter an equal amount...

... say a voucher for $50.00 every year.



Split it up, pool them, save them, burn them, whatever, but that would be the sum total of all campaign spending in the country.

[SixthSense]

4. Who decides who is a "major" candidate?

you'll just shift the influence peddling and lever pulling out of sight

for the moment the best strategy is to use people power

for example, that bastard who just gave Gingrich $5 million is obviously trying to buy our representation away from us - he shouldn't be able to get to work without walking a phalanx of angry protestors

after a pattern of calling out is established that raises the risk of trying to buy political influence




...and if one of these guys gets his head split open by a bottle thrown by an anonymous person in the crowd who can never be identified, well that's part of the risk of making war upon the people of this country

[oldhippie]

5. What defines a "major candidate"?

Darn, beat me by a minute!

[NNN0LHI]

7. You can define a major candidate any way you want to. Its immaterial to the questions I asked

[oldhippie]

17. No, it's not immaterial. How many "major candidates" .....

... can there be? Will there be? How do you limit the number and decide who gets what? How do you enforce it? C'mon, man, think this through.

[Bandit]

6. People have a right to discuss issues, even Rush, however when they use their platform

to promote individual candidates, they are effectivly providing valuable campaign financial support and can be limited by Law.

[dawg]

8. Let everyone give up to $1000 a year to a candidate.

Use the tax check-off money to match up to the first $100.

Any more than that, and both the giver and receiver are guilty of conspiracy to bribe a public official.

[NNN0LHI]

9. And with the GOP's media advantage Dems will never win an election

So I don't like that idea.

Don

[dawg]

11. My plan would cripple them.

Right now, they have that media advantage *plus* an overwhelming majority of the large contributions over $1000. Taking the big money out of the equation could only help us.

As for the media, they have their first amendment rights. But as the influence of the large donors declined, the power of the Republican party would also decline. With less influence, it becomes harder and harder to co-ordinate the vast right-wing conspiracy. Look how much trouble they are having right now. Imagine what the primaries would be like if Mittens did *not* have all those large donors giving him an overwhelming financial advantage.

[NNN0LHI]

12. How many elections until your plan starts causing the power of the Republican party to decline?

If you don't mind me asking?

Don

[dawg]

16. It would start immediately.

Right now, they've got the big money donors *and* the media. Take away the big money donors and they still have an advantage, but it will be diminished.

Case in point, all the tea-party whackos would be having a field day with Romney right now if he didn't have so much money to spend on attack ads kicking them back down. That would sew chaos in their ranks, and they might even end up nominating one of the unelectable extremists like Santorum. Of course, I guess someone as rich as Romney could always spend his own money. But right now, he doesn't even have to do that. The rest of the Wall Street fatcats pay his way for him.

We can't take away Rush Limbaugh's first amendment right to have his say. But we can keep people from purchasing the government outright. Money does not equal free speech.

[MadHound]

14. Perhaps you haven't been listening,

There have been a large group of people who want to implement publicly financed elections for a long while. Take corporate money out of the equation. I know I've been preaching this, as have many others, on this board since its inception.

[spanone]

15. you'll never get the money out...we need transparency so people can see the truth

the supreme court made it possible to scam the american people with money and no accountability