Obama Plans to TAKE over airwaves

[wrobert]

From his website:

Support Campaign Finance Reform: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system.


I am not sure that I like the idea of the government forcing certain things to be aired. I am assuming that in order for this to be fair, then anyone and everyone that wants to run for office now gets free air time? Maybe not, but what about those hard working private business owners that are trying to eke out a living for themselves? Does the government just take the time, or does it compensate them somehow? And what sort of a system are we going to use for that?

[sowalgayboi]

Unless it is Public Television I don't like the idea as it funnels government money into the networks pockets.

[scooterbug44]

How is free airtime for candidates different from networks airing a presidential address, test of the emergency broadcast system, or public service message? :idontno:

IMO giving political candidates equal and free airtime is a WONDERFUL idea and a HUGE step in getting special interests and big donors' voices silenced! Take the influence of contributions away and everyone's opinion and vote counts the same.

The federal government already controls and regulates the airwaves, why can't we use those airwaves to serve the best interests of the American people?

A couple hours a year of free political ads won't beggar "hard working private business owners" or the networks These wouldn't be free Super Bowl ads, just equally allotted air time.

[Beemn]

There used to be fairness in media act, and there used to be control over how much media any corporate entity could own! The great wonderful Reagon did away with all that, allowing corporate control, and corporations favor the corporate view...... so fox and their ilk spred , with mouthpieces like o'rielly polluting the minds of the easy manipulated without a counter voice.

[Furthur]

Politicians worth their salt don't need free anything. Especially if it is the taxpayer who is picking up the tab.
Obama wants the government to pay for everything ... except defense.
I really hope he gets the nomination.
I just can't believe that a majority of voters are going to fall for his Isolationist,America First, pabulum.
I'm betting that a lot of people who support Hillary will vote for McCain instead.

[Mango]

From his website:

Support Campaign Finance Reform: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system.


I am not sure that I like the idea of the government forcing certain things to be aired. I am assuming that in order for this to be fair, then anyone and everyone that wants to run for office now gets free air time? Maybe not, but what about those hard working private business owners that are trying to eke out a living for themselves? Does the government just take the time, or does it compensate them somehow? And what sort of a system are we going to use for that?


The Campaign Reform Bill was a bi-partison effort by Senators Russ Feingold, Dem. Wis., and Susan Collins, Rep./ Maine, along with Reps David Price, Dem./ North Carolina, and Christopher Shays, Rep..Connecticut, championing the new proposal and Obama wasn't the only candidate that supported it.

Besides McCain introduced the McCain-Feingold Act which was a campaign reform act as well. Matter of fact Feingold was even as bold to state that he believed McCain would support the new Bill. Why you titled the thread as though it is just Obama's was looking to overrun the airwaves when a GOP candidate introduced a similar proposal in 2002 is beyond me.

I think it would be beneficial to eliminate the special interests and economically makes fiscal sense in the long run since without having to pander to those groups and their earmarks etc., we would most likely save more money in the long run. Obama is already running his camp this way, so nothing would change much as far as he is concerned.
The only issue I could forsee with the public ads would be who gets what air time. Does Candidate A get Thursday night because Survivor is on and their core demographic is watching?
I am unclear about what you mean by the private business owners? are you suggesting that a privately owned media outlet would get snowed? Why would you think they would not get paid?

Take a look here at it's benefits..........
http://www.cleanupwashington.org/fairelections/

[wrobert]

McCain-Feingold has done more damage than good in my opinion. It led to the creation of the 527 groups such as swiftboat. It has severly limited the expression of people's opinions on federal elections. Thank goodness this forum is free. If not, there would be quite a bit of stuff that I could not say about getting out to vote, without keeping track of all of my posts, and reporting the value to the Fed. And those rules would apply to everyone, with possible prosecution of Federal crimes for failing to do it.

Because of McCain-Feingold when the WREC opens a election headquarters we will have to assign an amount of space to the Federal election and rent that back to the state party so that they can pay for it with a federal campaign account. We have to count every dollar we spend trying to get people to go vote in a local election toward federal limits because there will be federal candidates on the ballot. The paperwork is overwhelming. But hey, that is reform. Squashing my first amendment rights of free speech. I do not believe I can stand much more election reform at that rate.

And from running my own local election, I can see it is going to be impossible to limit fundraising to these small contributors. While I agree something needs to be done, public financing of elections is just going to put more money into the system and I do not see it stopping the corruption.

[rapunzel]

I just can't believe that a majority of voters are going to fall for his Isolationist,America First, pabulum.

Isolationist? America First? WHERE are you getting that? Please read his platform, which is clearly laid out under Issues on his website and get back to us.

Why you titled the thread as though it is just Obama's was looking to overrun the airwaves when a GOP candidate introduced a similar proposal in 2002 is beyond me.


He titles all threads this way, because he realizes most low information voters just click on New Posts and go into the threads the find interesting...like the Lounge stuff. But every time they refresh, they see his thread titles and it sinks in. It's quite clever, if a bit distasteful when you think about the contempt it shows for most voters.

It has severly limited the expression of people's opinions on federal elections...

And from running my own local election, I can see it is going to be impossible to limit fundraising to these small contributors. While I agree something needs to be done, public financing of elections is just going to put more money into the system and I do not see it stopping the corruption.

How, beyond limiting contributions to campaigns to $2300, has it limited the expression of people's opinions? One example, please....

The paperwork was always there. Before McCain Feingold, we always had to keep meticulous documentation. It's important that there be a money trail, because even if there weren't contribution limits there would still need to be transparency about who gave what and how it was spent. Look at HRC's campaign, for instance. She has blown through $125 million and her donors are furious and demanding to know where that money went. Candidates must be accountable -- even to their own supporters. I think the fact that the campaign spent $500,000 on parking in one month is an important thing to know.

I think the finance reform is fantastic, because every candidate has the same limitations. People who don't know a lot of rich people can still compete. Plus, if you just have a few mega-donors, how could you not be beholden to them? How could you not weigh their opinions a little more heavily than the rest of your constituency? Or, when you equate speech with money, do you mean that their opinions should rightfully be considered more important?

How do people raise money for local elections?

[wrobert]

How do people raise money for local elections?

Local elections are not covered by Federal law. We ask for contributions and dig into our own pockets. And believe me it is not easy finding people interested in funding a campaign. But that depend on the race. While I have raised around $4000 so far, one of the Sheriff's candidates told me he has raised $12,000. During the last election cycle I watched a BCC candidate raised about $85K, and all that without, what I thought was much opposition. And a House candidate raised $65K in 90 days. The money does seem to flow to where the influence may occur. Federal law does cover the parties and does come into play when a Federal candidate is on the ballot.

McCain-Feindgold:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112101859.html

http://www.examiner.com/a-256840~Editorial__McCain_Feingold_was_a_mistake.ht ml

http://www.slate.com/id/2099571

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34642.html

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/84893.htm

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1107/Romney_labels_calls_unAmerican_pins_blame_on_McCai nFeingold.html

[Smiling JOe]

He titles all threads this way, because he realizes most low information voters just click on New Posts and go into the threads the find interesting...like the Lounge stuff. But every time they refresh, they see his thread titles and it sinks in. It's quite clever, if a bit distasteful when you think about the contempt it shows for most voters.

:floor: you nailed me on the way I read through the new posts. I must be a "low-information voter."

[wrobert]

He titles all threads this way, because he realizes most low information voters just click on New Posts and go into the threads the find interesting...like the Lounge stuff. But every time they refresh, they see his thread titles and it sinks in. It's quite clever, if a bit distasteful when you think about the contempt it shows for most voters.


So am I, I guess. I missed this whole paragraph the first time. I am now insulted. I think you give me way to much credit. I have only finished the first three chapters of the Rove school of politics, and we have not covered that yet.

I did get a nice signed picture in the mail yesterday from the Rovemeister. Got to get that one framed.

[elgordoboy]

Local elections are not covered by Federal law. We ask for contributions and dig into our own pockets. And believe me it is not easy finding people interested in funding a campaign. But that depend on the race. While I have raised around $4000 so far, one of the Sheriff's candidates told me he has raised $12,000. During the last election cycle I watched a BCC candidate raised about $85K, and all that without, what I thought was much opposition. And a House candidate raised $65K in 90 days. The money does seem to flow to where the influence may occur. Federal law does cover the parties and does come into play when a Federal candidate is on the ballot.
I am confused. You don't like the campaign finance reform but in elections where it doesn't apply you comment that money goes where influence may occur (which implies that was happening on a federal level before reform)? I admit I may be misunderstanding, I have reread the post a few times trying to make sense of it.

[wrobert]

candidate is on the ballot.
I am confused. You don't like the campaign finance reform but in elections where it doesn't apply you comment that money goes where influence may occur (which implies that was happening on a federal level before reform)? I admit I may be misunderstanding, I have reread the post a few times trying to make sense of it.

I guess I am just naive. Money should not influence anyone doing the right thing. But I rarely see that happen with a politician. Current campaign reform is not working. It has just led to more politricks. So yes, we do need some sort of reform, I guess I need to come up with what I consider a solution before I speak against Obama's. At least he is trying to do something.:idontno:

[Furthur]

Before WWI & WWII those who tried to keep us out were labeled Isolationist.
Senator Harry Truman -God Bless Him- talked himself blue in 1939 trying to convince his Democratic brethren of the need for us to stand with Churchill and tell Adolf to back off.
Unfortunately millions would die before we woke up.
Senator Obama's vote against the war puts him in the same league.
He doesn't see the strategic benefit of our helping to bring Democracy to a country that according to the latest estimates has even more oil than Saudi Arabia.
His argument is economic. The war is a waste of money that should be spent in America First.
Which was the battle cry of Pat Buchanan when he preached against NAFTA.
Which Obama also opposes. Imagine those two agreeing on anything.

[Miss Kitty]

I guess I am just naive. Money should not influence anyone doing the right thing. But I rarely see that happen with a politician. Current campaign reform is not working. It has just led to more politricks. So yes, we do need some sort of reform, I guess I need to come up with what I consider a solution before I speak against Obama's. At least he is trying to do something.:idontno:

I think all campaign contributions should be made anonymously. Think money orders. :leaving:

[steeleing1]

Before WWI & WWII those who tried to keep us out were labeled Isolationist.
Senator Harry Truman -God Bless Him- talked himself blue in 1939 trying to convince his Democratic brethren of the need for us to stand with Churchill and tell Adolf to back off.
Unfortunately millions would die before we woke up.
Senator Obama's vote against the war puts him in the same league.
He doesn't see the strategic benefit of our helping to bring Democracy to a country that according to the latest estimates has even more oil than Saudi Arabia.
His argument is economic. The war is a waste of money that should be spent in America First.
Which was the battle cry of Pat Buchanan when he preached against NAFTA.
Which Obama also opposes. Imagine those two agreeing on anything.


Except for the fact that we did NOT go to war with Iraq to bring democracy to their country. We went to war with Iraq because of their "potential" to destroy ours. The democracy angle came only after the realization that the WMD's didn't really exist.

[Furthur]

Actually my friend you have it backwards.
The threat of WMD was the excuse to go in and bring Democracy to the Middle East.
Fulfilling a long standing Neocon goal.