Aug 12th 2011, 20:39:23
[quote poster=qzjul; 11529; 203085]
I would say the answer is more along the lines of Canada's campaign finance rules... no corporate donations!
-----from wikipedia-----
Per-vote subsidy
For each registered federal political party that received at least 2% of all valid votes the last general election or at least 5% of the valid votes in the electoral districts in which it had a candidate, the per-vote subsidy, also referred to as the "government allowance", gives the party an inflation-indexed subsidy each year of $2.04 per vote received in the last election.[7]
Of the three ways in which federal parties are allocated public funding, the per-vote subsidy is largely seen as the most democratic. 100% of the voters of eligible parties (99% of all voters in the last election) have a say, with their input treated on equal basis (1 voter, 1 vote)
Subsidy of political contributions
Political contributions are publicly subsidized via a personal income tax credit that credits 75% of the first $400 contributed, 50% of the amount between $400 and $750, and 33.33% of the amount over $750, up to a maximum tax credit of $650 (reached when contributions by an individual total $1,275 in one calendar year.) For the current maximum political contribution of $1,100 that can be given to the national organization of each party, the tax credit is $591.67, representing a subsidy of 53.79%.
---------------
Furthermore, campaigns are shorter here.. up to around 30 days -- but not 2 years!! no corporate donations, capped private donations ($1100).
Also, complete transparency should be required; money equaling speech is stupid, and democracy should DEMAND complete transparency in every aspect of government that there isn't a *really* good reason to have secrecy. [/quote]
What if a Canadian official killed a moose and you wanted to speak out about the killing? Shouldn't you be entitled to spend $2,000 or $5,000 to ridicule it because you're a Moose-lover? And I'm not sure how that's any different for a corportation? What if you're a so-called social-values corporation that opposes Moose killings...you try writing a letter to the editor and it gets rejected, are you collectively not entitled to buy a newspaper ad denouncing said Canadian elected official for killing the moose?
Originally posted by archaic:
Thats a big part of the problem, the cost of running a national election has risen to the point where all politicians are required to spend a sizable chunk of their time hustling for dollars. Who has the dollars (and hence, speech apparently?) big corporations and foundations. The influence of money on getting reelected has increased faster than Al Gore's hockey stick.
Answer?
Single terms - NO reelections. Take away the fear of losing and you might see some courage. 20-30 year veteran congress/senate members wield more real power than a lot of heads of state. If we had a max of one term in the house, senate, whitehouse - we would probably get a lot different demographic running for office - especially if we resumed public election funding.
meh
Answer?
Single terms - NO reelections. Take away the fear of losing and you might see some courage. 20-30 year veteran congress/senate members wield more real power than a lot of heads of state. If we had a max of one term in the house, senate, whitehouse - we would probably get a lot different demographic running for office - especially if we resumed public election funding.
meh
I would say the answer is more along the lines of Canada's campaign finance rules... no corporate donations!
-----from wikipedia-----
Per-vote subsidy
For each registered federal political party that received at least 2% of all valid votes the last general election or at least 5% of the valid votes in the electoral districts in which it had a candidate, the per-vote subsidy, also referred to as the "government allowance", gives the party an inflation-indexed subsidy each year of $2.04 per vote received in the last election.[7]
Of the three ways in which federal parties are allocated public funding, the per-vote subsidy is largely seen as the most democratic. 100% of the voters of eligible parties (99% of all voters in the last election) have a say, with their input treated on equal basis (1 voter, 1 vote)
Subsidy of political contributions
Political contributions are publicly subsidized via a personal income tax credit that credits 75% of the first $400 contributed, 50% of the amount between $400 and $750, and 33.33% of the amount over $750, up to a maximum tax credit of $650 (reached when contributions by an individual total $1,275 in one calendar year.) For the current maximum political contribution of $1,100 that can be given to the national organization of each party, the tax credit is $591.67, representing a subsidy of 53.79%.
---------------
Furthermore, campaigns are shorter here.. up to around 30 days -- but not 2 years!! no corporate donations, capped private donations ($1100).
Also, complete transparency should be required; money equaling speech is stupid, and democracy should DEMAND complete transparency in every aspect of government that there isn't a *really* good reason to have secrecy. [/quote]
What if a Canadian official killed a moose and you wanted to speak out about the killing? Shouldn't you be entitled to spend $2,000 or $5,000 to ridicule it because you're a Moose-lover? And I'm not sure how that's any different for a corportation? What if you're a so-called social-values corporation that opposes Moose killings...you try writing a letter to the editor and it gets rejected, are you collectively not entitled to buy a newspaper ad denouncing said Canadian elected official for killing the moose?