Jimmy Carter calls for return to publicly financed elections

[w4rma]

Source: The Washington Post

In an interview with fellow former Oval Office holder Bill Clinton, Carter said the system encourages public participation in the electoral process. “Personally, I'd like to see public funds used for all elections — Congress, U.S. Senate, governor and president," Carter said at the Atlanta meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative.
…
Carter first criticized the Supreme Court’s "stupid Citizens United decision," which opened the floodgates for unlimited contributions in the presidential race. But he said, "another thing we could do is go back to presidential campaigns just using public funds for the general election," like the system that allowed him to effectively compete against incumbent Republican President Gerald R. Ford.

Carter, when he ran for the presidency, was a relatively unknown Georgia governor, but he and Ford both received $20 million in 1976 from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, a post-Watergate reform funded by a $3 option on individual income-tax returns. The fund is supposed to level the playing field in presidential elections. To receive public money, candidates must agree not to accept private contributions.

More than $300 million now sits unused in the fund because most candidates no longer want to agree to its spending and fundraising restrictions. So far, the only major-party candidate to have sought public money in the 2016 primary was Democrat Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor.

Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.) sponsored a bill to reform the system to bring it in line with modern election costs, but the measure has fierce Republican opposition.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/15/jimmy-carter-calls-for-return-to-publicly-financed-elections/

[bonemachine]

1. Well, we'd better throw him under the bus quick!

[99th_Monkey]

2. Damn straight Jimmy! Thank you for calling for an end to Oligarchy n/t

[Hortensis]

64. Absolutely. AND we need to cap the cost

of elections at a very low level, using the miracles of IT to make that very possible. Public finance will be a terrible blow to the election industry and their every-2-year/2-year-long election cycles, but a cap on the money will finish it off as a profitable enterprise, and good riddance!

Important step to billion-dollar campaign chests and buying offices as head-shaking info in history books.

[brooklynite]

3. Bwas Bernie Sanders going to take public funding for his General Election campaign?

[w4rma]

4. No. Though Bernie Sanders raised his funds from small donors, he raised too much money to qualify.

The matching funds limits are too small to be useful, currently. Bernie raised more than his maximum allotted in a single month (without holding a single fundraiser).

General Election Limit: $96.14 million
Overall Primary Limit: $48.07 million
…
Candidates also must agree to:

• Limit campaign spending for all primary elections to $10 million plus a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).6 This is called the national spending limit.

• Limit campaign spending in each state to $200,000 plus COLA, or to a specified amount based on the number of voting age individuals in the state (plus COLA), whichever is greater.

• Limit spending from personal funds to $50,000.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#Primary

[ancianita]

11. +1 k & r

[red dog 1]

52. Thanks for that info

Very interesting!

[tecelote]

5. K$R

Every candidate should be on equal footing financially and concerning airtime.

Fair is fair.

[robbob]

31. Which candidates?

Dem and Rep? Green? Socialist Equality Party? Independent America Party? Prohibition Party?

There's quite a list of people running for POTUS, despite what the media would have you believe:

http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm

...so who decides which parties get money and which ones don't qualify?

[Dont call me Shirley]

36. uh, The People!

[robbob]

38. I meant if we want government funded elections

If "the people" are funding elections there will always be some people who have more money to buy candidates with.

[Dont call me Shirley]

39. Each candidate, no matter the party should be funded equally. No private money in elections, none!

[robbob]

40. Sorry, when you wrote "the people"

...I thought you meant through contributions, preferable small individual contributions, like Bernie did. Something that I found admirable, astonishing, and historic.

But did you click on my link? There are hundreds of parties and individuals running for president, the vast majority of whom I have never even heard of! You tell people the government is going to fund them all equally and you can bet that number becomes thousands! You don't see a problem with that?

[Raster]

6. In addition, there should be accurate exit polling done for all major elections...

...you know, just like the United Nations does all around the world... I believe President Jimmy could help us out there.

[red dog 1]

56. + 1

But "accurate exit polling done for all major elections" won't stop the Rethugs from stealing elections via vote "flipping"

http://blackboxvoting.org

[Duval]

7. K&R.

[sailfla]

8. Yeah, just get the yo yo's to vote for that

[tabasco]

9. He's right, of course, but this nation is too far down the rabbit hole to recover

Democracy is a sham in the USA.

[frazzled]

10. Yay! No more ...

Mailbox filled every day, year in and out, with dozens of scream headers, bemoaning doomsday and asking to press the donate button at the bottom.

I really am tired of this. It's the single thing I'm really sorry Dean and mostly Obama initiated. It's turned into a monster.

I've always been for publicly funded elections, drawn from the tax dollars we pay. It will reduce all the ads as well as the insane length of never-ending elections.

[w4rma]

12. "Publicly subsidized" elections would be a more accurate term. Those fund raising drives

won't end, since "matching funds" need funds to be matched to.

[jtuck004]

13. Let's just return to Jimmy Carter. n/t

[Craig234]

47. Good idea

Most underrated president. But hey, let's let a few Iranian radical students pick our president.

[bluestateguy]

14. The spending caps are too low

Candidates who take that money are tying their own hands, and that's why they don't take it.

So as David Price proposed, you have to raise the caps.

[skepticscott]

15. He's right, although the presidential election is not the real problem

Congress is bought and paid for, and the laws they pass (or don't pass) are for the benefit of the buyers. Publicly funding House and Senate elections would transform the country like almost nothing else could. Every House race could be funded for $5 billion, which is chump change compared to what the corrupting of our lawmakers costs us in money and lives. The tax evaded by one major corporation would cover it. A campaign to educate people on just what corporate control of Congress is costing this nation would be a great start.

[dreamnightwind]

21. excellent

[Craig234]

46. Congressional corruption

The financing of Congressional elections is one critical issue.

And that one makes the price tag so high they have to spend half their time dialing for dollars - and to do THAT they obviously have to have policies a few wealthy donors find appealing. If not, they can post on DU instead of being in office.

But that's only part of the problem. Another critical issue is that over half of Congress and their staff members go to lobbying when they leave office - creating a massive industry of influencing votes replacing the public interest.

And since they know they're wanting to go to lobbying, they know they need to do what lobbyists want while in office.

This is why so often the only time the public interests has a chance is when there is a conflict between two powerful lobbying interests and one of them happens to align with the public.

But the public cannot compete giving money for a good cause with interests who make billions from their donations.

[NobodyHere]

16. I think Obama shut the door on that one pretty tight

[vkkv]

17. The public is ALREADY PAYING for elections THROUGH THE HIGH COSTS OF insurance, education, prisons..

Voters here in the U.S. must demand PUBLICLY FINANCED ELECTIONS with strict spending limits because if you look at the big picture, we ARE ALREADY PAYING for elections THROUGH THE HIGH COSTS OF insurance, education, prisons, crime, pharmaceuticals, energy, food (future food prices could sky-rocket with thanks to Mansanto) and even war. Much of the money you spend on goods goes into the pockets of a politician who may vote on legislation that is bad for you or worse, for the entire country.

You know the saying, "the best Congress money can buy! " - it is more truthful now than ever with the conservative SCOTUS ( 5 GOP appointed / 4 Dem appointed) making "Citizens United" legal. The word "Citizens" is really 'Corporations', but conservative leaders don't tell us that. Many Dem leaders have called for the end of "Citizens United" but not ONE single word coming from Republicans. Care to guess why??

We are quickly on our way to becoming a third-world country where leaders are paid-off by corporations and the "we people" are left out of the picture.

[KPN]

24. +1000

[ErikJ]

33. We've become a Banana Republic ruled

by the rich and their political stooges.

[Phlem]

18. Thank You Sir, can we have another?

More Wisdom please.

[Little Tich]

19. Publicly funded elections would make politicians less corrupt - but that's not what politicians

want.

[Craig234]

48. Actually I think a lot of politicians would like to see it

But, the thing is, they can't get it - if they support it, they'll just lose office. It's not easy to get a 'revolution' among elected officials.

That's why it needs to be the people organizing - as Bernie says.

[felix_numinous]

20. K&R Yes to publicly financed elections

[marble falls]

22. Jimmy was a good President who got unfairly swamped by the times. But he's been a great former ...

President and a moral light. He should be President Emeritus of the United States.

[Craig234]

45. About your sig

The far-right policies aren't even good for the 1%. They take a bigger share of a smaller pie, but even they'd do better with more distribution of wealth leading to more growth and a bigger pie for them to get a piece of.

[marble falls]

50. I think we can pare it down even tighter. The policies that "help" the 1% won't keep a total ....

collapse from over running them every single one of them, too. You can't take it with you and you can't eat it either.

[red dog 1]

57. President Carter probably would have won reelection in 1980

after the first debate when Ronald Reagan, without a teleprompter in front of him, lost that first debate and looked very bad.
After that debate, Carter was ahead of Reagan in all the polls.


But the "Reagan Team"..headed by William Casey, resorted to criminal acts to ensure that

A) The Iranian hostages were not released until after Reagan was elected
(Google "October Surprise&quot

B) White House CIA officer Donald Gregg stole President Carter's briefing papers for the
second presidential debate, (while Carter was out of town) made copies of them, then turned them over to George Will, who then "coached" Reagan before the second debate, so that Reagan knew ahead of time what President Carter was going to say during that 2nd debate, and thus, Reagan "won" that debate ("Well, there you go again&quot
(Google: "Debategate&quot

(I apologize for not providing links, but in this case, 2 Google searches will have to suffice)


In summary, Ronald Reagan STOLE the 1980 presidential election!

[marble falls]

59. Whether Reagan stole it or not, the poblic got robbed.

[red dog 1]

61. "The public got robbed" BECAUSE Reagan stole the 1980 election

Donald Gregg, George Will, William Casey & all the other co-conspirators in "Debategate"
should have been prosecuted!

[midnight]

23. I agree- Citizen's United was a stupid decision….

[MoonchildCA]

25. This is my absolute, number one issue!

[tonyt53]

26. But what is left out of the story is that to get anything moving it will take lots of money now

[TryLogic]

27. Campaigns should be structured, like a good hiring process. Thorough, as fair as possible, etc.

Many more questions from citizens, not preprogrammed or arranged by campaigns.

No more lies, manipulation of news and media, no more big money purchases of media, votes, voting machines, etc.

But, of course, anything fair or reasonable will face "fierce Republican opposition" for obvious reasons.

[Eric J in MN]

28. Hillary Clinton should prioritize this.

HRC said during one of the debates that she's for publicly funded elections. Sanders regularly says that he is.

However, she usually says that she's against "unaccountable money." (More disclosure would be a smaller change.)

After the meeting on Tuesday, his statement said they discussed "real campaign finance reform." Her statement said they discussed "eliminating undisclosed money."

Public financing is an issue HRC can join with Sanders on without contradiction.

[TheProgressive]

29. The other major problem is America's ongoing Election Fraud...

A democracy can only work when our elections are 100% fair and accurate.

Otherwise we get what we already have - a dysfunctional Congress/President, owned by he rich for the rich. They call it oligarchy.

[red dog 1]

54. + 1

http://blackboxvoting.org


"Recall Election Fraud in Wisconsin? You Betcha!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125144291

"How Did Scott walker Ever become Governor Of Wisconsin?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016128214

[tblue37]

62. A K-State math prof's analysis says Kansas almost certainly did not reelect Brownback. Of course

his administration is stonewalling her efforts to get access to the raw data to confirm her analysis.

[kacekwl]

30. Sorry my bad ,

I thought it said Hillary Clinton calls for return to publicly funded elections.

[phazed0]

32. Now if we could just get the Dems to agree. nt

[cstanleytech]

34. You mean Dems other than yourself right since you are already a Democrat?

[phazed0]

35. I don't matter but for a vote...

It's the big-wigs we need to represent us, that I speak of.

[Dont call me Shirley]

37. The airwaves are public, tv, radio and internet should be forced to provide an equal amount of

free advertising to each candidate.

[robbob]

41. Hear hear!

Why should these huge corperations rake in millions (billions?) of dollars each election cycle? No wonder they are more interested in promoting a "horse race" then making any attempt to inform their viewers about the issues.

It's sickening and so transparent. Corperations donate tons of money to the candidates who turn around and give it back to giant media conglomerates to pay for election advertising.

[red dog 1]

53. + 1

The airwaves are, indeed, public

"The equal time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it."
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

[SmittynMo]

42. Do you think the

establishment will allow this? Think again.

[red dog 1]

55. Perhaps a better question might be

"Do you think the Republicans will allow this?"

Answer: "Of course not!"

[Phlem]

43. Fucking Amen!

[Craig234]

44. Why haven't I heard a word attacking Republins on this in Democratic campaigns?

"Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.) sponsored a bill to reform the system to bring it in line with modern election costs, but the measure has fierce Republican opposition."

Thank you David Price (I just called his office to say thanks).

Why haven't we heard this issue as a campaign issue attacking Republicans for opposition in Democratic campaigns?

I don't mean the very general support for reform - Bernie has loudly supported that, Hillary has said she supports it also.

But Republicans are BLOCKING it and I haven't heard a word asking voters to oppose them for that - why not?

I think Democrats need to get lot better about holding Republicans accountable for obstructionism.

I hear about the issue from news and pundits but rarely from Democratic candidates. I think they should campaign on it.

[Uncle Joe]

49. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, w4rma.

[ladjf]

51. This thread has been one of the most constructive

Piecesx is seen on du in a long time.

[red dog 1]

58. K&R!

Jimmy Carter is the most underrated President of the 20th century, imo.

A truly great man!

[Old Union Guy]

60. "Publicly financed elections" == public money *added* to the corporate schmiergeld. n/t

[peace13]

63. Thanks Jimmy. Paper ballots too please.

A unified set of National primary rules would be great as well. End black box voting and go back to balanced coverage of candidates on TV.

[Overseas]

65. K&R. Yes please!

[appalachiablue]

66. K & R. Excellent plan President Carter. Many thanks, all the best and be well.

[Grins]

67. Agree; and been saying it since the Republican scandal over Part D in Medicare

After that vote the Republican leadership alone (Hastert, Delay, Boehner and others) went into a close-door meeting and re-wrote parts of the bill that took away from the government the right to negotiate with drug companies for drugs that they bought for Medicare, and probably the VA, too.

Just like that - $22 Billion went into the pockets of Big PhRMA who had funded many GOP campaigns. A few months after Bush signed the bill into law, Republican Congressman Billy Tauzin announced that he was retiring from Congress and would be taking a job as - chief lobbyist for PhRMA, for a paltry salary of $2 million a year.

And that's just one case. There are probably hundreds of them every year.

I'd go further and fund elections for the House and Senate as well as state governorships. If it costs less than $22 billion, it's a steal.

[saidsimplesimon]

68. Former President Carter

walks the walk and talks the talk, unlike some others. My love and sincere appreciation to both Rosalynn and James Carter.

I support his efforts to take "dark money" out of our election system. A concept even Senator McCain once supported.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

69. Yes and please.