To start, something I shared with George S and "the Big Jerk" (as ML would say)
RE: Campaign Finance Reform
Contrary to what many may think and feel, a plutocracy is not a government ran and operated by Mickey Mouse's dog. A plutocracy is a country ran by and for the interests of the wealthy. Millionaire Congressman receiving financing from large corporations doling out corporate welfare give the very strong perception that government isn't working for "average" people and their concerns. Many "average" Americans feel as if only the wealthy can partake in the political process because of the amounts of money needed to run a political campaign. Many average Americans feel that the large amounts of money given to campaigns effect the objectivity of the politicians receiving these large contributions.
Though much has been written about the apparent improprieties associated with campaign financing, solutions to these apparent indiscretions so far have dealt exclusively with constraining how much and who can give to politicians and their respective parties. Constraints discussed regarding "soft money", PAC's, and individual contributions, not only confront constitutional issues related to inherent freedoms, but also beget new and creative ways to circumvent any new rules imposed. Previous attempts at campaign finance reform clearly illustrate the basic truism that any legislation left to interpretation will provide loop holes ripe for expansion and exploitation.
So rather than just focus on how money is given to candidates, the focus should be expanded to alter any perceivable correlation between what contributors receive from (in either the form of favorable legislation, tax favoritism, and allocation of federal contracts) and how much these contributors give to specific politicians.
To alter this correlation between what is given and what appears to be received, I make the following suggestions related to legislation, taxes, and allocations.
On legislation, disqualify any representative to vote on any pending legislation related to the specific interests of an contributor, because of any perceivable and possible conflict of interest with other constituents, if aggregate contributions exceed a thousand dollars for individuals, and ten thousand dollars for PAC's.
On taxes, no tax breaks or deductions for any individual, group, or corporation will be given unless at least an absolute minimum of five percent of the population can benefit from any specific tax break. Plus any existing deduction that doesn't comply with this criteria will be eliminated.
On allocation, fifty percent of tax revenues generated for discretional and defense spending will be distributed to Congressional Districts in a lump sum per constituent basis determined by voter participation for 18 years old and above, and by school enrollment for 17 year olds and below.
Though these proposals are targeted specifically at campaign finance reform, the ramifications of their implementation on the way government operates are enormous especially regarding taxes and allocation.
On taxes, a five percent criteria for a tax break or deduction may seem very low, but have you read the tax code? There are numerous tax breaks given to very specific groups and even individuals. How many people in America can depreciate their race horses? Applying this five percent criteria simplifies the tax code, increases revenues (also allowing for middle class income and payroll tax cuts) without adversely effecting the vast majority of constituents, and basically makes the system fairer and more democratic by not providing tax advantages to plutocratic contributors.
On allocation, imagine what would happen to voter participation if politicians realized that money coming to their states and districts was contingent upon their constituents partaking in the democratic process. Would there be negative campaigns to turn off voters? Probably not. Will polls be open on Saturdays, and voting, in general, made easier to do? Most likely yes. Allocation changes also effect incumbency by reducing the importance of seniority and the ability of senior members of Congress to steer specific programs to their states and districts, especially when the programs seem to benefit primarily the very limited interests of a Congress person's state or district and not the country as an whole.
In all fairness to large land states not densely populated and for very specific concerns, targeted taxes with specific distributions will have to be utilized and kept separate from the general funds. For example, higher gas taxes for highways and rapid transit. Higher sin taxes (cigarette and alcohol) for healthcare and healthcare research, and some higher land user fees for agriculture and the environment. Social security i.e. payroll taxes at lower rates should also again be separated from the general funds and applied to all income not just the first fifty-six or so thousand dollars of income especially if there is no means testing. These changes in allocation give real motivation for voter participation, and the creation of specific taxes applied to specific programs allows for participants to better understand where and how their tax dollars are being spent. These changes are fairer as well as drastically alter real and imagined correlation's between campaign contributors and federal largess receivers.
Changing voters perceptions that politics and politicians are not representing their needs, by enacting changes that diminish the real and imagined influence of specific interests by dissociating contributions from programs and benefits received, doesn't directly and adversely effect the ability of special interests to voice their concerns by supporting candidates who share their views and goals. For special interests, in spite of the double speak, are the old, young, black, female, white male, angry white male, females angry at white males, soccer moms, Hispanics, Hispanic soccer moms, gays, labor interests, corporate interests, environmentalists, gun enthusiasts, gun un-enthusiasts, pet owners, pet rock owners, "conservatives", "liberals" or, in other words, all the different people who are the citizens of these United States.
Sincerely,
ztect
|
