Reach across the isle #1: Money in politics.

[BULLDOG]

Unions vote on where to pool their political spending. Are you saying they should't have that right?

Yes. Take money out of politics. You seem to only want money taken out that goes to the GOP.

That is a start.

You think lobbyists only pay off one party?

No of course not, but you on the left wouldn't be so anti-Citizen's if the majority of it went to the Democrats.

Are you saying that you won't agree to the compromise?

There are lots of ways that money is effecting our elections. I thought you wanted to find areas of agreement.

I do, if it's possible. You seem to think that "agreement" means agreeing with you.

Sorry, I cant come to an agreement for somebody else. Can you?

 

[PredFan]

Yes. Take money out of politics. You seem to only want money taken out that goes to the GOP.

That is a start.

You think lobbyists only pay off one party?

No of course not, but you on the left wouldn't be so anti-Citizen's if the majority of it went to the Democrats.

Are you saying that you won't agree to the compromise?

There are lots of ways that money is effecting our elections. I thought you wanted to find areas of agreement.

I do, if it's possible. You seem to think that "agreement" means agreeing with you.

Sorry, I cant come to an agreement for somebody else. Can you?

We will just put you in the hopelessly polarized left category.

 

[alpine]

As I explained in this thread:

CDZ - The polarization of American politics.

I want to see if it is even possible to bridge the gap between two polarized groups.

I think that one place where both sides may have common ground is the influence of money in politics.

On the right, I believe that money has too much influence on our political process. I'll bet that many on the left also believe the same.

Do we have common ground there?

So how do you plan to take money out of politics?

Money is in everything, let alone politics.
Even the morality in this country is defined by money.

Your dreams are too good to be true.... imo...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I'm a liberal. I agree with you PredFan on getting money out of politics as, I think most citizens would.

Citizens United was the right call by the SCOTUS. Simply look at the ramifications of overturning the ruling.

A better solution would be a constitutional amendment to implement campaign finance reform. No dark money, no super pacs, no anonymous donations, no corporate donations, and very limited amounts; or just public campaign finance with limited budgets.

Unions should stop giving campaign contributions and allow individual members who wish to make contributions to do so, or not.

And neither Representatives or Senators for the Democrats nor the GOP have done much about this since McCain and Feingold 14 years ago. Lack of political will has undermined any legislative action on this front.

I think that public financing is the way to go with this. Also a very limited budget for each. Perhaps require media outlets to provide a certain amount of air time equally as part of their license contract with the FCC. Looking at PACs and other special interests when in office is another animal but needs to be addressed as well.

I'm ok with overturning C.U., but only as part of a major overhaul and elimination of all monies, as you just listed.

I'm not ok with overturning Citizens United.

Not to get off track, but just to quickly illustrate my point:

Let's say you and I start a nonprofit organization that promotes candidates who are willing to work with the other side. We make a documentary about these candidates we support and in the film point out the flaws of their opponents. Then to get the most bang for our and our contributors dollars, we advertise the film to be shown on MSNBC and FOX news 60 days before the primaries. Before the Citizens United ruling we would've been breaking the law. That seems to me an obvious indefensible violation of the First Amendment.

I can't say I know enough to have an airtight solution to campaign finance reform, but the public financing seems like the best option.

I disagree with forcing media outlets to cover all candidates equally as that seems like a constitutional violation of the freedom of the press to me. I would like to see more parties' nominees in the debates, but how do you do so and keep the government out of the press?

 

[my2¢]

I think the hold up all along on any deal is money from labor unions. For compromise to work each side must give up something. You can't have one side saying our big money is good but your big money is bad.

 

[jasonnfree]

As I explained in this thread:

CDZ - The polarization of American politics.

I want to see if it is even possible to bridge the gap between two polarized groups.

I think that one place where both sides may have common ground is the influence of money in politics.

On the right, I believe that money has too much influence on our political process. I'll bet that many on the left also believe the same.

Do we have common ground there?

We could start with making an election cycle shorter. Nowadays, the electioneering starts a couple years or more before the election, which means tremendous amounts of money that candidates have to go begging to special interests for. Maybe a law passed requiring campaigning no earlier than say six months. This would make for cheaper elections and make public funded elections more practical.

 

[PredFan]

As I explained in this thread:

CDZ - The polarization of American politics.

I want to see if it is even possible to bridge the gap between two polarized groups.

I think that one place where both sides may have common ground is the influence of money in politics.

On the right, I believe that money has too much influence on our political process. I'll bet that many on the left also believe the same.

Do we have common ground there?

We could start with making an election cycle shorter. Nowadays, the electioneering starts a couple years or more before the election, which means tremendous amounts of money that candidates have to go begging to special interests for. Maybe a law passed requiring campaigning no earlier than say six months. This would make for cheaper elections and make public funded elections more practical.

Excellent addition, thanks. Are you liberal, conservative, or something else? I only ask for statistical purposes.