Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Stinky The Clown

(67,809 posts)
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:14 PM Jul 2012

Instead of "Campaign Finance Reform", what about "Campaign Conduct Reform"?

Here's what I'm thinking.

Controlling money in politics is a pipe dream. No incumbent will do it. No underdog will do it. The few attempts over the years have been as effective as a fart in a windstorm.

So how about we regulate, not the money, but the ability to spend it?

Can we make it illegal to run campaign ads, to make speeches, or do *anything* that is obvious campaigning until some specified time in advance of the election in which one is on the ballot? I'd like that to be a week, but maybe a month? Six weeks at most?

I think that would help because the cacophony of "contrast" ads, Harry and Louise conversations, and all the usual bullshit will be so thick, so non stop, so incessant, that it would very quickly become just so much white noise.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Instead of "Campaign Finance Reform", what about "Campaign Conduct Reform"? (Original Post) Stinky The Clown Jul 2012 OP
Will likely run into same arguments that gave us citizens united, elleng Jul 2012 #1
What they should have to do Politicalboi Jul 2012 #2

elleng

(131,006 posts)
1. Will likely run into same arguments that gave us citizens united,
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:26 PM
Jul 2012

and same resistence as occurred this week, re: Disclose Act.

Read about Buckley v. Valeo, an important 1976 decision, and later, 'In 2008, the Court further restricted attempts to minimize the effects of private money on races for the U.S. House and Senate when it struck down the "Millionaires Amendment" in the case of FEC v Davis (originally Davis v. FEC). In 2010, the Court overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and part of McConnell v. FEC in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In Citizens United, the Court interpreted Buckley as providing more expansive First Amendment protections for independent expenditures made on a candidate's behalf. In 2011, the Court further restricted methods of campaign finance restrictions, based on an interpretation of Buckley and Davis in Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett, striking down a public financing system put in place 13 years earlier in response to Arizona's widespread campaign corruption scandals.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

Thanks for trying.

 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
2. What they should have to do
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:31 PM
Jul 2012

Is only show facts. No rearranging words from your opponent, and making it your talking point for a week.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Instead of "Campaign...