As long as Congresscritters must raise money to run TV ads, we're screwed!

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recip.asp?sort=N

Look at all this money going to members of both parties--albeit most of it going to Republicans in a position to influence legislation-- and donated by several Indian tribes apparently at the direction of Abramoff, reportedly totaling over $60 million. It is not a pretty picture of how our system works.

As Molly Ivins has said, Congresscritters tend to "dance with the ones that brung 'em." It is past time, that those who "brung 'em" are us, "we the people." We have a system of "pay to play" that has completely run amok. Huge amounts of money do not come into the system for those only "looking for good government." Who are we kidding?

Nothing will change if we do not demand it. The media, who received about 10% of their 2004 income from political ads, obviously, will not lead the charge.

We need public financing of campaigns, perhaps with candidates having to show support for their candidacy by meeting a threshold for small contributions from citizens before they are eligible to receive public funds. We cannot look to either party in Congress to readily change a system that benefits incumbents, unless we demand it.

Will we? Probably not, and it's a damn shame. We will get the same tired argument that "money is speech," but the voices of those who cannot "pay to play" are effectively silenced. To say that we are a government "of, by and for the people" is a cruel joke, indeed.

[HereSince1628]

1. I'm not convinced about public financing. I think the downside potential

is real. The legislation will be passed through Congress which is likely to prevent upstart potentially competitive movements from equal access to money. And it is likely that the balance of power in Congress would determine just how biased it would be toward one of the two major parties.

[Dr.Phool]

2. Nothing could possibly be worse than what we have now.

Abramoff proves that, along with an incumbency re-election rate higher than the old Soviet Politboro. Right now the only way you have political free speech is if you have money. Lots of it.

I speak from experience. I ran for Congress last year, and although I had many supporters, and I good message, I couldn't raise the money to become a viable candidate. It's also the most demeaning experience I've ever been through, spending 8 hours per day on the phone begging people I don't know for money.

If you think public financing would be to expensive to taxpayers, just look at what the last transportation bill or the medicare prescription drug bill cost.

I also worked the polls on election day for candidates, and the biggest complaint I heard talking to voters, was that they knew nothing about the local candidates. The media, print and broadcast, won't cover them so they're forced to buy ads.

I'm sure we can come up with a system that will be equitable for all candidates, including 3rd parties.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Some will certainly try to make any legislation favor incumbents.

This is where the public must demand otherwise. Will it happen? I doubt it. Is it worth the fight? Absolutely!

Congress members ought to be able to persuade their consituents that they are working in the public interest--if, indeed they are. Those who fail this test, ought to be retired by the voters.

[flpoljunkie]

4. "Abramoff among lobbyists most closely associated with K Street Project"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010301536_pf.html

Jack Abramoff represented the most flamboyant and extreme example of a brand of influence trading that flourished after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives 11 years ago. Now, some GOP strategists fear that the fallout from his case could affect the party's efforts to keep control in the November midterm elections.

Abramoff was among the lobbyists most closely associated with the K Street Project, which was initiated by his friend Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), now the former House majority leader, once the GOP vaulted to power. It was an aggressive program designed to force corporations and trade associations to hire more GOP-connected lobbyists in what at times became an almost seamless relationship between Capitol Hill lawmakers and some firms that sought to influence them.

Now Abramoff has become a symbol of a system out of control. His agreement to plead guilty to three criminal counts and cooperate with prosecutors threatens to ensnare other lawmakers or their aides -- Republicans and possibly some Democrats. At a minimum, yesterday's developments put both sides of the lawmaker-lobbyist relationship on notice that some of the wilder customs of recent years -- lubricated with money, entertainment and access -- carry higher risks. In the post-Abramoff era, what once was accepted as business as usual may be seen as questionable or worse.

<>Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who co-wrote campaign finance changes a few years ago, have introduced separate proposals that would crack down hard on lobbying as now practiced. Their ideas will serve as the starting point for what is expected to be a vigorous debate.

_________________

Wonder whose bill cracks down the most on lobbyists' undue influence?

[flpoljunkie]

5. Broadcasters ought to provide free air time. Gore's idea: 5 min/night, 30

days before a primary. The link below is from a discussion on NPR on "FREE AIR TIME" for campaigns back in 2000. Among the participants were Walter Kronkite who began by saying, "We simply have to take American democracy off the auction block, and this is a way of getting it done."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june00/free_air_3-30.html

TERENCE SMITH: Why should broadcasters provide free time? They're in the business of selling time.

PAUL TAYLOR: Well, I can make the argument on two grounds: One, their public interest obligations, and one, their journalistic obligations. Broadcasters are different from newspapers. They're different from just about any medium. They have been given a resource owned by the public.

TERENCE SMITH: That resource, of course, is the airwaves. Ever since the advent of radio, the airwaves have been considered public property. And the federal government has licensed only station operators who promise to act in "the public interest, convenience and necessity," a vague standard that persists today.