Follow TV Tropes

Following

Campaign Finance

Go To

secretist Maria Holic from Ame no Kisaki Since: Feb, 2010
#1: Aug 15th 2011 at 11:17:16 AM

Real Campaign Finance Reform is a website dealing with the issue of campaign finance. What everyone should know. Articles / Essays Lawsuit About RCFR

Campaign finance laws have unintended consequences. While they may reduce corruption or not, but they do edge out independents and third party candidates.

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#2: Aug 15th 2011 at 11:30:15 AM

Third parties have no chance either way as long as first past the post voting exists.

secretist Maria Holic from Ame no Kisaki Since: Feb, 2010
#3: Aug 15th 2011 at 11:35:53 AM

[up]The election of 1860 disproves such determinism. Duverger's converse

he converse of Duverger's Law is not always valid;[citation needed] two-party politics are not necessarily the result of SMDP. This is particularly true in the case of countries using systems that, while not SMDP, do not fully incorporate PR either. For instance, Malta has a single transferable vote (STV) system and what seems to be stable two-party politics.

In the Australian upper house there is proportional voting but there is still a trend towards the major parties, though smaller parties have been able to win seats. (Also, this phenomenon occurs within the context of the use of the alternative vote for Lower House elections.)

Some systems are even more likely to lead to a two-party outcome: for example elections in Gibraltar use a partial block vote system in a single constituency, meaning that the third most popular party is unlikely to win any seats.

In recent years some researchers have modified Duverger's Law by suggesting that electoral systems are an effect of party systems rather than a cause.[7] It has been shown that changes from a plurality system to a proportional system are typically preceded by the emergence of more than two effective parties, and are typically not followed by a substantial increase in the effective number of parties.[8]

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#4: Aug 15th 2011 at 12:03:11 PM

I don't understand how finance ceilings affect third parties. If everyone stays under the limit, how are the poorer ones affected negatively?

edited 15th Aug '11 12:04:24 PM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
secretist Maria Holic from Ame no Kisaki Since: Feb, 2010
#5: Aug 15th 2011 at 12:18:36 PM

A fraudulent campaign funding system

Perhaps you've heard stories about organized crime raiding union pension funds to finance their operations. Well, the ruling parties do the same thing with the public treasury, under cover of law.

The politicians have led people to believe that those taxpayers who check-off a box on their tax forms voluntarily donate the money the major parties receive. This is untrue.

Taxpayers do not voluntarily give more money to the government to fund campaigns, instead the check-off box on the tax form simply allocates money from the U.S. Treasury for that purpose.

This is an unconstitutional transfer of the appropriations power of Congress to the small minority of taxpayers who check the box.

Worse still, if the number of people who check the box declines, as it has steadily since the program was created, Congress simply raises the amount of money transferred by each individual check-off until it matches the amount of funding they think is needed. There is nothing voluntary about this program.

In essence, the ruling parties have voted themselves access to government money for their own purposes, and hidden the theft behind a fraudulent cloak of voluntary taxpayer participation. But the extent of their legalized criminality doesn't end here.

Incumbents have used their law making abilities to give themselves and their parties hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers' money to run their conventions and presidential campaigns. This means your tax money is used to support candidates that you oppose.

Worse still, equivalent sums are not made available to third parties, and some third parties refuse, as a matter of principle, to take what little taxpayers' money is available to them. They believe it is unethical to force taxpayers who may oppose their campaigns to fund them.

The third parties that believe the campaign funding system is unethical are placed in a terrible bind. If they accept the government money they look and feel like hypocrites. But if they don't accept it they are placed at an even greater competitive disadvantage. While the major parties receive tens of millions of dollars in taxpayers' money for free, the principled third parties must spend a good third of their income on fundraising. Add these fundraising costs to the expense of ballot access petitioning and little remains for campaign outreach. This means that major party presidential candidates are effectively protected from third party competition, and voters are denied access to fresh ideas and new choices.

Public campaign finance is limited to major party candidates. Necessary Reading

edited 15th Aug '11 12:19:55 PM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
GameChainsaw The Shadows Devour You. from sunshine and rainbows! Since: Oct, 2010
The Shadows Devour You.
#6: Aug 15th 2011 at 12:31:49 PM

...Is America even a democracy any more?

This isn't as ridiculous a statement as it sounds if you think about it for a while. In terms of who can vote, sure, the US is modern and up to date. But in terms of campaign corruption? They seem hardly a hares whisker above Britain in the 1830's.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#8: Aug 15th 2011 at 2:43:39 PM

Well since the new campaign financing rules were introduced into Canada that severely restricted donations, put low spending limits and gave public money to parties... third parties have become substantially more powerful at the cost of mostly the liberal party. The tories (conservative party) have long been upheld by grass root campaigns from usual social conservatives in the west and fiscal conservatives in central Canada. On the other hand, liberals usually receive significant corporate donations but those were banned. The NDP on the other hand receives a lot of union donations, similarly banned but because they were always the "2nd place" to the liberals, under the first past the post system, the liberals dipped just enough in the polls for a total reversal to give NDP 2nd place in the last election.

The biggest boon of public money has been to the Greens (who now have a seat in parliament through a legitimate victory in Saanich-Gulf Islands). Their only hope right now is public funding.

Yej See ALL the stars! from <0,1i> Since: Mar, 2010
See ALL the stars!
#9: Aug 15th 2011 at 2:51:35 PM

[up][up][up][up] Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you meant public money.

Why are you using public money to fund campaigns at all?!

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#10: Aug 15th 2011 at 3:24:08 PM

If you ban private donations, then you instead have a set amount of public tax dollars to let candidates run with.

secretist Maria Holic from Ame no Kisaki Since: Feb, 2010
#11: Aug 17th 2011 at 7:38:37 AM

That's a waste of taxpayer money, favors incumbents, shuts out dissenters and third partys, regulates free speech, etc.

Also, the Supreme Court would definitely strike down such a law.

edited 17th Aug '11 7:39:18 AM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#12: Aug 17th 2011 at 7:40:05 AM

[up] & [up][up] Which is why banning private donations is a horrendously stupid idea. Limiting them, on the other hand, is a really good idea.

I am now known as Flyboy.
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#14: Aug 17th 2011 at 7:52:03 AM

Err I meant ban private donations not from individuals.

I'd probably put the donation limit around 250 because anything higher favours people with very high incomes. There is very little money to give away below the 50k/year income mark.

EDIT: Maybe you can just quote the piece about how much money you think is correct.

On public taxpayer money, I think you have a wrong conception of how it works. It's the very thing killing the incumbents and helping third parties win in Canada right now.

edited 17th Aug '11 7:54:04 AM by breadloaf

USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#15: Aug 17th 2011 at 7:53:26 AM

I'd say a thousand. Not so high that a middle class or even lower class person couldn't necessarily afford it if they really wanted to, but high enough that rich people can be all "oh yeah, I just wrote a check for that much and I'm not worried in the slightest that it will bounce."

Yeah, I have a low opinion of rich people right now...

I am now known as Flyboy.
GameChainsaw The Shadows Devour You. from sunshine and rainbows! Since: Oct, 2010
The Shadows Devour You.
#16: Aug 17th 2011 at 10:45:37 AM

Things should be more centrally organised and be based on online manifestos and telivised debates rather than placards and constant advertising. Have a series of campaign debates around the country where everyone can come and weigh in, and have a site with everyones manifesto on it. That sort of thing is worth funding out of the nations pocket as it means everyone, large and small, can have their voice heard equally.

This is why the UK has such a massive advantage. We have the BBC. That means we have the infrastructure for setting up a platform for all parties to get their messages out without having to fork out massive amounts of money.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
secretist Maria Holic from Ame no Kisaki Since: Feb, 2010
#17: Aug 17th 2011 at 10:48:55 AM

The UK is not that much a multi-party sytsem as a three-party system in the sense of three dominant parties.

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
GameChainsaw The Shadows Devour You. from sunshine and rainbows! Since: Oct, 2010
The Shadows Devour You.
#18: Aug 17th 2011 at 10:48:55 AM

I had a look at that cost generator in that link to the article about the VAT hike. Apparently, spending £8000 before now amounts to £8170 instead. Now thats small change if you've got a decent buffer between you and destitution. If you're already on the edge and now suddenly you have to find an extra hundred and seventy quid, well...

It hits the most vulnerable the hardest.

[up]Yeah, I know. And it annoys me. We're practically tribal.

EDIT: I said we have a massive advantage. I didn't say we leveraged that advantage to any effect.

edited 17th Aug '11 10:49:53 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#19: Aug 17th 2011 at 11:01:32 AM

Actually most Commonwealth states are like that. It's usually a 2+ system. Who the two are revolves around and sometimes radically so. It's usually a tory/liberal/labour analogy every time, with one to two more minor parties of local flavour and then a bunch of crazies (usually separatists). Unfortunately the 'first past the post' system encourages a lot of separatist flavour because it can actually win seats but never win enough to do anything.

Public financing and public debate systems (Canada holds national debates between the parties, anyone who holds at least one seat gets in on the debates, via the ominously named 'Consortium'. I guess they didn't care how evil they sounded :P) works to assist the third parties. Fringe parties do gain an advantage as well but it's more subtle. Basically, by limiting the spending of the major parties, who have virtually unlimited cash in comparison, you substantially reduce the gap between them and fringe parties. You tack on the fact that you do public financing via tax dollars, the plus parties receive significant amounts of money they never would have gotten.

GameChainsaw The Shadows Devour You. from sunshine and rainbows! Since: Oct, 2010
The Shadows Devour You.
#20: Aug 17th 2011 at 11:03:09 AM

Problem is you still get more money if you're a major party. In fact, its more so, because its government funded, the private sector and the population can't just turn around and hand their money to another party. If anything, paying-by-vote simply anchors Canada to its major parties.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
secretist Maria Holic from Ame no Kisaki Since: Feb, 2010
#21: Aug 17th 2011 at 11:18:46 AM

Canada is another example of a three-party system. Overall, three, but different districts are dominant or two party.

  • New Brunswick: Conservative / Liberal
  • Nova Scotia: New Democrat / Liberal / Conservative
  • British Columbia: Liberal / New Democrat
  • Quebec: Liberal / Quebecois
  • Alberta: Conservative / Liberal / New Democrat
  • Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan / New Democrat
  • Ontario: Liberal / Conservative / New Democrat
  • Newfoundland & Labrador: Conservaitve / Liberal / New Democrat
  • Prince Edward Island: Liberal / Conservative
  • Manitoba: New Democrat / Conservative / Liberal
  • Yukon: Yukon / Liberal / New Democrat

edited 17th Aug '11 11:20:45 AM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#22: Aug 17th 2011 at 11:22:45 AM

Ah, not exactly. If you look at the actual money count, Liberals lost the most money by far since the new rules came in. A good 2/3 of their income simply vanished. For the tories it was more like 1/2 of their money dissipated. This is after they already received the tax money.

If you didn't want to anchor it by vote, you could just give a flat money to any party that manages 1% of the popular vote. It favours incumbents but not enough to actually hurt. Remember that as a parliamentary government gaining a single seat isn't a big problem.

For the United States, the issue is strange because the House and Senate are based on winner-take-all by each state. There's just over 500 representatives for 300+ million people, whereas Canada has 308 representatives for 33 million people. I think the voting districts in the states are too large to be democratic. You might need multiple representatives per state and institute proportional representation or just have each state divided into smaller units, for the House.

The Senate would simply just have any orgnaised donation banned. They'd get only limited individual donations. Since you only have two senators per state, it's a bit tricky. I think perhaps that you can still have tax-funded candidates but it would work on the principle of "if you get privately funded, it cuts into your public funding". So every dollar in private funding cuts, say, 50 cents of public funding from you. And then everyone receives a flat amount of tax money if they earned at least 1% of the popular vote last election.

EDIT:

Well careful Secretist, those are provincial governments you are looking at. Most of the provinces are on a 2+1 system. Quebec is a 3-party system (Libs/Parti Quebecois/Action démocratique du Québec). BC is a 2-party system. And federally, you have a 2+3 system, which just recently turned into a 2+2+1 system.

edited 17th Aug '11 11:25:04 AM by breadloaf

Add Post

Total posts: 22
Top