There's only one way it can happen.
Everyone has to read the Constitution, and understand what it created, what we were intended to be, how it was intended to work, and hold elected officials to it.
That won't be easy, and may be impossible, because what that means is refusing to accept that the federal government should be involved in firearms control, hurricane relief, legalizing or outlawing abortion, or whether or not you should smoke cigarettes.
Those things the federal government does that the Constitution does not give them authority over is where the big money comes from. That's the only way we're ever going to get real campaign finance reform, by taking away the reason for big money to even care what the federal government does.
If you're not ready to give up your favorite government subsidy or program, you are not ready for real campaign finance reform.
http://www.lp.org
2006-10-14 04:31:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by open4one 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
A rather good program has been implemented in Arizona (and elsewhere, I think) that simply provides matching funds for candidates. This means that if one person gets $10,000,000 from the drug industry, his/her opposition gets a matching donation from the public campaign fund.
This does cost a little in taxpayer dollars, but it comes back ten-fold by having elected officials who aren't in the pocket of special interests.
Of course, there are a few additional details.
Check out the links below for more specifics.
The nicest thing is that that this isn't some pie-in-the-sky dream, but something that exists now and is already working well.
2006-10-14 04:39:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Steve 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Simple: all campaign contributions are made to a central campaign contribution clearinghouse. All contributions must be made 120 prior to the elections. ALL money will be evenly distributed among ALL candidates, who may then use their share of the money as they see fit.
It would prove the voters who the most prudent and fiscally responsible candidates are, show how they manage and budget money effectively, and eliminate the money-drenched incumbents from winning over and over again. -RKO-
2006-10-14 04:41:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
properly, he has started this entire undertaking with FBARs the place he can (heavily) tax those with off shore money owed (rich those with swiss financial company money owed, etc) for no longer filling out this style (which permits him to tax them, yet no longer fairly as heavily). i'm truthfully starring this question, i prefer to work out what his supporters could say. Edit: i'm no longer even advantageous if what I spoke of is a sturdy undertaking or no longer. yet another Edit: i understand i'm no longer the asker and that i do no longer rather have the right to declare this, yet for destiny professional-Obama answerers: please do no longer purely flame the different edge. Debaters waste their time doing that. purely let us know what Obama has carried out. I recommend heavily, i do no longer even help the guy and that i've got suggested greater sturdy issues approximately him than any of you (so a techniques). Or did he rather do no longer something? i'm commencing off to lean in direction of the right now.
2016-10-02 07:14:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by laseter 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
We can't. The people who write the laws don't want any campaign finance reform.
2006-10-14 04:26:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Here's my plan. All contributions must be made by individuals. No group can make a political contribution. I can give as much as I want to whoever I want.
2006-10-14 10:39:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by STEVEN F 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Simple. Make it illegal for George Soros to funnel millions of dollars into supposedly non-partisan political groups who advertise ONLY for the democrats (and only if they obey Soros' dictates).
2006-10-14 04:31:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋