What would happen if you repealed all campaign finance laws and simply required full disclosure?

[BrentWil]

These laws are extremely complicated. Instead of protecting the people, it seems to only open elections to the very rich who can hire lawyers to understand the laws or to political operatives. The average person cannot raise the money to run very easily.

From an outsider looking in, there is a limit to what money will buy you. You can only buy so many TV aids, etc. On the other side, if you don't have money, it is everything. You can't compete against a well funded person. With the state of campaign laws, it is very hard for the average person to get the money. In my opinion, that is why you have so many of the rich funding their own campaign or new candidates coming from the political connected.

What would happen if we simply repealed campaign finance laws and replaced them with a simple requirement of full disclosure. On one side, one would know where the money is coming form. These shadow groups would go away and the money would be spent by the candidate. On the other side, it would open democracy to the poor or middle class. It would be a lot easier for someone not rich to actually raise the money to run. TO me, with the current state of the laws, I say repeal them and replace them with a simple requirement for full disclosure.

[KurtNYC]

1. they should make politicans wear the logos of their corporate sponsors like they do in NASCAR

they would almost all look like the image of Bush that was circulated years back.

[littlewolf]

2. here is my take

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=516438&mesg_id=516444

[BrentWil]

3. Good post

Generally agree. Think 24 hours might be unrealistic but generally agree

[littlewolf]

6. I can be agreeable to other time frames that are

reasonable ... 48-72 hours or thereabouts .... generally this is programable and really would not need to be manually inputted ....

[BrentWil]

8. Well you are actually not thinking about the small guy..

That might be fine for bigger guys, but that will be insane for someone who is unknown and just decides to run in a primary. I would say once a month, two weeks before an election and the day before would be enough.

[littlewolf]

12. true .... esp in the primaries ....

once they are the candidate ... lots of support from the party ... including IT ....
if the support isn't there .... then I can easily see once a month ....
that is probably better even ....

[Bitwit1234]

4. And only the truly dedicated would care

the American people are a self centered bunch. They only think of what's in it for me. If the republicans and some Democrats who take money from corporations don't influence these bunch of idiots personally they would not care one bit. If the princes from Saudi Arabia, the rulers of Iran and all the ME countries contributed money to these corrupt politicians they would think about it for about one minute and go on with what they are doing.

It is only a group of Americans that care about our country that are upset about this. And I know you all believe this also. Look at how they forget about the sex scandals of some of the politicians and then remember others, only because the MSM keeps fanning the flames.

[BrentWil]

9. Why would it change those who care about it? NT

[OHdem10]

5. Who would bother to look up who donated to whom. You

would simply have unregulated elections.

[BrentWil]

10. As opposed to know where the law is murky and people don't know what is going on?

THis way is simply and people would get it. It takes the insanity out of it.

[AlinPA]

7. Why would shadow groups go away? Why would the corporations stop their funding of elections?

[BrentWil]

11. No they continue... it would just be transparent and the smaller guy would stand a chance NT

[AlinPA]

13. I don't get it; how does transparency give the smaller guy a chance?