Hello Political Junkies -- I'd love to see finance reform, but none of the ideas I've seen will improve -- in my opinion -- the quality of elections, the theater of ideas, and the average capability of "runners" improving as a whole. Too much of every candidate and elected person's time is spent on the money trail. So, we then end up with the best money-raisers garnering the most support, especially from party leadership. Leadership sees effective fundraisers as leading to easier elections and elect-ability, which increases the party's position. However, there is no proof that better fund-raising results in better elections and better candidates. If the grand idea is to have the checks and balance of various ideas and open forums, then the root of finance should be based upon the vision or philosophy of a party or ticket. The alternative ticket may have significant differences. Money is simply needed to trumpet those differences and convince voters to make value judgments. So how about a system that changes the value of the commodity? Have all funds raised for party candidates go into a party pool -- no limits on individual amounts, no limits on corporate giving. In essence, this is a blind trust. Those giving vast sums are making plain their philosophical commitment to an ideal. The pool leadership doles out funds to various candidates and elections at every level as needed to run what the party believes are effective campaigns. I don't think the sums given would need to be made public -- here's why. Since the pool doles out funds as needed, the age of the dominant money connection would disappear since fund-raising talent fills a community war chest ? not an individual's. The ability of money to sway a candidate becomes less relevant. The real money battle is then inside the party boundaries, and the ugly public slash and gash campaigns are confined to the battle for the soul of a party and it's ideals and direction. Party platforms become important once again ? and candidates stick to them. Party leadership will have to learn how to budget funds to all levels of candidates. Party leadership would become more broad-minded ? and fund candidates based upon their ability to add intellectual capital to the party ? and not just money. Candidates spend less time raising funds ? maybe even zero time -- thereby increasing the likelihood that running for office can be altruistic. Once in office, there is a fixed budget to run again ? knowing that time in office is spent on issues more important than money. The dominant parties could agree to upper limit budgets for certain offices. Or, parties could agree to percentages of the total for various offices ? giving the better fundraisers more money to dole out. Wealthy candidates could still spend what they like ? but the public would be even more skeptical of them. Can you imagine what would happen if someone abandoned an election campaign promise, or lied to the party? Extremes in both parties would have to become less strident since those philosophies are not consistent with the overall party direction. Party officials would have to discipline renegades or oust them. The pool would otherwise suffer because donors would be furious for steering the funds poorly. Over time, I bet the amount of money spent on campaigns would drop off to a maintenance level. We'd end up with sane election cycles, better party leadership, and better public policy. You'll never remove the power of money from politics. But you can change the value of what it buys. Warm Regards -- Terry Matula DR Horton -- Eagan Home -- Hastings, MN _______________________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
