I'm very happy to know that campaign finance is getting this sort of attention. I've always been incredulous that in our system, bribery isn't just legal, it's literally mandatory -- you can't get elected if you're too clean to accept shady campaign contributions.
I love the $100 tax-rebate-for-campaign-contributions idea. I have long thought that we needed to publicly fund campaigns but despaired at the power of entrenched interests: existing campaign finance reform laws came with loopholes that ultimately revealed them as PR stunts rather than legitimate efforts to curb bribery. The tax rebate is exciting because it sneaks a backdoor into what would appear to be another bogus reform law.
"Naming and shaming" lobbyists, muzzling the latest contribution-funneling-device-du-jour, and calling for more regular rule enforcement aren't strategies that strike me as particularly promising, since they simply call for more of what we're already doing (if x gets us nothing, no reason to expect 2x will get us more). But they serve as the perfect vehicle to deliver #7, the tax rebate, which silently activates once public interest reaches a certain threshold (enough to outspend current election financiers) and gives the bill teeth. A brilliant design!
I really hope this works. I doubt it will, but I really, really want to be wrong.
Oregon has a 50 dollar (or $100 for married filers) tax credit for direct campaign contributions to political candidates or certain classes of organizations (I tend to just donate to a candidate though, for confidence/simplicity.)
It's definitely incentivized me to redirect this portion of my Oregon taxes to a candidate (on local/state/national level) I support.
Thanks for linking, I hadn't heard of this program before. It's even better that this sort of plan has precedent inside the US!
I'm fairly certain no other form of campaign finance can work. You can require lobbyists and politicians to jump through higher and higher hoops but at the end of the day politicians will still need to fund their campaigns, most people still won't want to spend their money on politics, and lobbyists will still be willing to do what is necessary to net a few 100-1000x ROI wins for their employers. The hoops will be jumped and the asymmetric bribery will continue until regular people get in on the game, and the only way to get regular people in on the game is to pay them to do so since, unlike their wealthier counterparts, they can't count on the occasional 100-1000x ROI win to incentivize their donations.
Here are the details of the law they are pushing for: http://anticorruptionact.org/
I'm very happy to know that campaign finance is getting this sort of attention. I've always been incredulous that in our system, bribery isn't just legal, it's literally mandatory -- you can't get elected if you're too clean to accept shady campaign contributions.
I love the $100 tax-rebate-for-campaign-contributions idea. I have long thought that we needed to publicly fund campaigns but despaired at the power of entrenched interests: existing campaign finance reform laws came with loopholes that ultimately revealed them as PR stunts rather than legitimate efforts to curb bribery. The tax rebate is exciting because it sneaks a backdoor into what would appear to be another bogus reform law.
"Naming and shaming" lobbyists, muzzling the latest contribution-funneling-device-du-jour, and calling for more regular rule enforcement aren't strategies that strike me as particularly promising, since they simply call for more of what we're already doing (if x gets us nothing, no reason to expect 2x will get us more). But they serve as the perfect vehicle to deliver #7, the tax rebate, which silently activates once public interest reaches a certain threshold (enough to outspend current election financiers) and gives the bill teeth. A brilliant design!
I really hope this works. I doubt it will, but I really, really want to be wrong.