Campaign Finance Reform

[billroper]

I was chatting with a friend about campaign finance reform and I think I came up with this idea -- although in such conversations it's possible to lose track of who started it. :)

Instead of trying to limit campaign contributions from corporations, or labor, or whomever, allow anyone to give as much money as they want to. The only restriction is that whenever the candidate appears in public, he has to wear a jumpsuit like a NASCAR driver with patches from all of his "sponsors" with the size of the patches relative to the size of the contributions.

Imagine a candidate with a giant Microsoft logo splashed across his chest...

Comments

[drzarron.livejournal.com]

BRILLIANT!

[whl.livejournal.com]

They'll weasel out of it; the money will be laundered so that Microsoft's donations all seem to come from the Foundation to Save the Spotted Owl, which for some reason has the world's smallest logo...

[tesral.livejournal.com]

I like it. As likely as This stuff (http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/Politicks/control.html) but fun to think about. Better yet make then wear the suit full time so we remember who their real constituency is. We might get a better idea of what is going on if Shrub was covered in oil company and military supplier patches.

It would take the pols about five minutes to figure out how to subvert that.

[madfilkentist]

The government has no business telling people that they can't spend as much money as they want promoting or attacking any political candidate. Saying, "you have freedom of speech, you just don't have the freedom to spend money making your speech heard," makes a mockery of the concept. Saying, "You have freedom of speech, but you have to wear a clown suit when you speak," literally makes a mockery of it. Whether your suggestion is an attempt at humor or a serious suggestion, I find if very offensive.

[billroper]

It's both an attempt at humor and a variation on a serious suggestion.

I think that our current campaign finance laws are a complete mess, because I don't think that the government has any business prohibiting political speech. That said, I want to know who is contributing to any particular candidate, because -- to the extent that they may be bought and paid for (assuming that you remember the definition of an "honest politician") -- I'd like to know who bought them so I can get a better idea of whether or not the things that they'll be pushing the candidate for are congruent with the things that I want the candidate to be pushing for.

Of course, some folks are just too lazy to go out and look up the information, even if it were easily and instantaneously available on the web. But if you put it in their face... :)

[maiac.livejournal.com]

I like it.

But the logo splashed across a candidate's chest is most likely to be a big insurance company or oil company rather than Microsoft. I'd rather have Microsoft buying politicians. Their interests are less inimical to the rest of us.

[madfilkentist]

Why not just cut to the chase and have anyone who seeks political office wear a scarlet letter? If you want to make pariahs of those who participate in the political process, do it plainly and openly.

[tesral.livejournal.com]

I think a brand on the forehead ought to do it.

The problem with political "free" speech is it is seldom free. Someone is paying for it. I believe the consumer, that is the voter, has every right to truth in advertising as to who is paying for the speech.

These people are asking for power. I think we the people have every right to make them jump through as many hoops as we want, even ones that make a fool of them. Considering the American political process, if you can't stand being made a fool of, get out of the race.

Nowhere did it say that anyone making political speech has to wear logos, only people running for office or in office. You want power? You make public who is paying your way with every word you speak in public. I don't think that is unreasonable.

[madfilkentist]

The problem with political "free" speech is it is seldom free. Someone is paying for it.

This is a pathetic play on words. Let's apply that to freedom of the press. That is never free, at least if we're talking about actual print. By your logic, then, there is in fact no freedom of the press.

When you say a "right to truth in advertising," you actually mean a right to be provided with information, which overrides the right of free speech. I assume that you favor prohibiting all anonymous speech, since it lacks "truth in advertising" by your claim. But the demand for "truth in advertising" in speech stifles speech, silencing many who would otherwise speak.

But wait. You aren't against government control over the terms under which people can speak. You just want the government to control the terms under which they can seek office. You say the government has "every right to make them jump through as many hoops as we want, even ones that make a fool of them." Every person seeking re-election heartily agrees with you. The harder and more humiliating it is to seek political office, the safer the incumbents are from challenges.

There are many countries, past and present, that have implemented your program. Membership in the ruling party, membership in the right church, approval by the current people in power are just a few of the hoops which "we the people's republic" have imposed on political candidates. It works quite well for them.

But please keep in mind that when this system is implemented, there's one little defect you've failed to think about: You won't be the one running it.

[min0taur.livejournal.com]

We'll probably see something like that crop up as an animated political cartoon on Second Life (if someone hasn't done it already). I rather expect that if it were attempted in what we are pleased to call "real" life, there'd be a lot of back-room haggling over which forbidden body parts must *not* be used as locations for the logo. (For example, who would want the right buttock, especially if it suggested half-...uh...*hearted* support?)

[billroper]

I'm thinking that the Honey Baked Ham company isn't going to be a large enough contributor to get a patch of that size. :)