PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul on Election Financing




MarcMadness
07-25-2007, 01:44 AM
Ok, I got into a debate today with a friend regarding public financing. I was against it for of course the same reasons Ron Paul is (in accordance with the fundamental philosophy of freedom, let alone the fact that my money certainly shouldn't go to a candidate I don't support). This however was just after a rant by myself about how lobbying is the root of most of our problems, and she used that argument to prove her point about how the corporate money needs to get out of it, hence her argument for public financing.

I know Ron Paul is against it but does anyone understand how he feels about corporations being able to donate massively to certain candidates and basically buying elections. Considering the uphill battle the Paul campaign if facing against this I'd be interested to understand his views better. And of course, have some ammo for when I continue this debate tomorrow. :)

If anybody has any insight it'd be much appreciated.

austin356
07-25-2007, 01:50 AM
I feel the same way with this as I do with Net Neutrality.

Both are just big government regulations rightfully intended to offset the negative effects of other big government programs/spending/etc/etc

Though I am very sympathetic to the intentions, all I need to do to prove to myself the paleolibertarian stance on this is correct is to look at history. Have big government regulations intended to offset other big government problems ever actually made the situation as a whole better?

And I find the answer is no.

MarcMadness
07-25-2007, 02:02 AM
I'm not sure if that one's gonna fly in this argument...of course I too am sympathetic to the intention so it's hard for me as well. Especially when I can't think of a solid counter argument outside of my general principles, which of course she isn't exactly sympathetic to.

kylebrotherton
07-25-2007, 02:13 AM
I can't speak for Dr. Paul, but here's my problem with public financing:

If every candidate has the same cash to spend, and I can't give more cash - then every candidate will buy the same amount of air time, print ads, and radio ads. But the media can still report on whoever, whenever, for any amount of time. So the media will essentially control the level of exposure, with no way to counteract their decision. The only way to prevent this is for Congress to make a law limiting the freedom of the press (unconstitutional).

Kuldebar
07-25-2007, 02:19 AM
If you remove the power of government from corporate interests you no longer will have the huge amount of cash flowing into political campaigns.

To prove this, look at Paul's campaign.

With out government working on behalf of corporations, companies would have to solely rely on pleasing their customers, or fail.

MarcMadness
07-25-2007, 02:19 AM
That's a good answer and I like it. I guess the main thing I'm trying to figure out who is how to stop giant corporations from contributing enormous sums to the corporate candidates who will back legislation and wars for their benefit? We definitely agree on the problem, just not necessarily the solution. Or is there one?

foofighter20x
07-25-2007, 02:23 AM
This however was just after a rant by myself about how lobbying is the root of most of our problems, and she used that argument to prove her point about how the corporate money needs to get out of it, hence her argument for public financing.

Wait... Corporate money is the probelm, so it needs to be replaced with public money?

Why?

Why not just cut out the corporate money?

Ask her that. ;)

Kuldebar
07-25-2007, 02:25 AM
Well, like most of what Paul advocates, it requires drastic cuts in the size and power of the federal government. Once you close or diminish the ability of the government to dole out favors to corporate cronies you have an improvement right there. But, you also must make government activities far more transparent to the people, so things can be seen in full light of day.

Regards to corporate money: It's tricky because individuals represent corporations, so trying to split that out is kind of difficult.

I would say it doesn't matter who gives what money to whom as long as there is absolute disclosure and the power of government is restrained by the Constitution.

maiki
07-25-2007, 02:50 AM
Solutions: cut corporate money to the level of a private citizen: everyone gets the same caps on funding. period.

Solution 2: no caps on funding. One corporation wants to donate 1 million or have 100 individuals donate 10,000.

Bad Solutions: Have people pay for their presidential candidates campaigns unwillingly? What a racket! Doesn't benefit the people, only politicians.

Bad Solution 2: put caps on individuals donating, and let corporations donate as much as they want. Wait, that is what we have now...

mtmedlin
07-25-2007, 07:33 AM
I say he takes every bit of the public money that he can.... and then donate to pay down the national debt. It would get press coverage and i dont see how they could spin it as a negative.

kylejack
07-25-2007, 08:45 AM
The question you have to ask yourself is why corporations give money to candidates. Government has a lot of money to give out in subsidies, and contributions of just a few thousand here and there to some campaigns gets them millions or even billions in benefits and subsidies worked into bills. Now imagine President No, who is vetoing every bill that comes to him full of pork. When Congress can no longer get the pork passed, the corporations will stop giving money and things will get more rational again. If you want proof that this can work, I urge you to check out Opensecrets.org. Look up Ron Paul's congressional campaigns, paying attention to the percentage of donations coming from individuals rather than corporations and their PACs. Now compare that to nearly any other member of Congress. Ron Paul is for small government and for a hell of a lot less regulation and taxation of corporations, yet they don't support him. Why? Because he's not working to help them milk at the government's teat. Get rid of the subsidies and it all goes away.

kylejack
07-25-2007, 08:59 AM
Mtmedlin, that's a pretty interesting idea you have and would be quite the media boon, but I think public financing changes the rules about how he can spend his funds. We wouldn't want to tie his hands. Practically, though, it should work. I know that donations can be made to the Treasury to pay down the debt.

Avalon
07-25-2007, 09:45 AM
I say he takes every bit of the public money that he can.... and then donate to pay down the national debt. It would get press coverage and i dont see how they could spin it as a negative.

Uh, the public money would come from the government (ie, increase the current account deficit), so the donation would cancel that...thus having no net effect on the national debt.

kylejack
07-25-2007, 11:00 AM
Not true, the money comes from people checking off a box on their tax return and is already segregated from the general budget.

MarcMadness
07-25-2007, 12:54 PM
..there WOULD be no way to keep mega corporations from donating massive amounts to candidates. The real argument is to end the government subsidies that are the root cause of WHY the corporations give so much money to candidates.

It is absolutely incredible to me that there is a restriction on how much *I*, an American citizen, can donate to Ron Paul or anybody for that matter, and yet there is no such restriction on a corporation, an entity driving by profit that has no 'rights' or 'citizenship' whatsoever.

kylejack
07-25-2007, 01:37 PM
Corporations can't donate any more than you to a presidential campaign.