Rich, the problem is you just can't fix stupid or lazy
Anon
· 8 months ago
I am for caps- I realize that Alexi still raised a ton of money and the caps don't necessarily prevent raising a ton of money... but at least in order to raise ridiculous sums of money you have to do it from lots of people, rather than just handfuls of people writing $25K checks.
VanillaMan
· 8 months ago
Rich, This is your area of expertise. I, and most of my acquaintences, no longer expect to be enlightened by reading newspapers. If they have subscriptions at all, they do for the local news, police beat reports, and local ads.
In these cases, I have been seeing locals reading local news, but balancing what they read with whom they know, what they believe, and their personal experiences. This level of cynicism is probably not new, yet it has become open and publically accepted.
So, after a decade of this, it seems that newspapers and journalists have about as much credibility as Vince, the Sham-Wow! guy. What newspapers are printing, citizens are not buying.
We are seeing a real change occuring.
Squideshi
· 8 months ago
Limits don't go far enough. We need full public financing of public elections. Citizens have a right to be informed about all of their choices.
10th Indy
· 8 months ago
what's with the 2008 negative story on Kirk?
BannedForLife
· 8 months ago
"No challenger has won in decades against a sitting congresscritter unless said critter has been involved in a big scandal. Caps haven’t helped challengers here."
It's your blog, you're within your rights, it's natural & normal for a subscription-based service to adopt some of the positions of the subscriber base.
BannedForLife
· 8 months ago
from "caps don't work" to "caps don't work at the federal level" to "caps don't work for Illinois congressmen" to "caps haven't worked for Illinois congressmen in decades"
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
BannedForLife, is that assertion wrong about the history of caps and challengers?
ZC
· 8 months ago
Another way of pointing out some of the problems with caps, is the thought experiment: if caps are so great, and low caps are great, why not ban ALL contributions?
Make it zero. No one can give any money to anyone in politics.
However, that by itself ignores how current incumbents a) still can go on media; b) still can send out taxpayer-financed mailings to their constituents; c) still have a bunch of outside interest groups who can engage in their own independent campaigns; d) will just start out, whenever the caps are introduced, with whatever name recognition levels have been previously established by previous spending and / or media.
Against that, a challenger is going to do ... what, precisely? Unless he / she is a multi-millionaire, or the complete and utter lackey of an outside group who is thereby willing to pour thousands into the race, independently, what chance does the challenger have?
Carl Nyberg
· 8 months ago
No challenger has won in decades against a sitting congresscritter unless said critter has been involved in a big scandal. Caps haven’t helped challengers here.--Rich Miller
Is the goal of reform to prevent people who do get elected from doing corrupt stuff? Or to make it easier for challengers to win?
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
===Is the goal of reform to prevent people who do get elected from doing corrupt stuff? Or to make it easier for challengers to win?===
Both are absolutely essential.
Carl Nyberg
· 8 months ago
The data may supports contribution limits as a tool for reducing corruption.
There may be something else necessary to level the playing field for challengers vis-a-vis incumbents.
Why do you believe making it easier for challengers to beat incumbents is an essential component to reducing corruption?
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
===Why do you believe making it easier for challengers to beat incumbents is an essential component to reducing corruption? ===
Many reasons. Here's one: Too-comfortable incumbents can often be less responsive to the will of the people. Here's another: There just aren't many contested campaigns in this state, which deprives voters of real choices.
Wow
· 8 months ago
The only conceivable way in which to make for a level playing field for challengers under a Cap system would be to allow all challengers to raise more money under the cap than the incumbent. An incumbent doesn’t ever start from scratch at the beginning of each election cycle. Plus, in order for them to do constituent work and have an agenda they should be more accessible to the media. Money isn’t the only reason that incumbents are at an advantage.
And as far as removing all money from politics please see Buckley v. Valeo which says that would be against the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.
Also, on public funding you would need to grab hold of your socks. The current check off doesn’t have the money in it to fund our presidential races adequately which is lucky since the winners lately haven’t gone that route. They basically just raise money for the conventions.
Sorry grumpy Friday rant on a topic I love to argue.
Squideshi
· 8 months ago
Those are some real words of wisdom, Rich. I couldn't agree with you more.
Of course, the whole contested campaign issue is largely a result of repressive ballot access laws, no?
ac
· 8 months ago
"[Campaign contribution] limits will make it harder to buy influence and easier to mount challenges against well-financed incumbents."
I don't think the caps are a bad idea when used to limit influence. However, I agree with Rich that they can (and are) easily be circumvented. The concept that it will be easier for challengers to mount an effective campaign against an incumbent if we limit contributions is patently false and an old wives tale that losers tell to justify their poor showing at the polls. The vast majority of challengers (in my very limited experience) don't understand the project they are undertaking when running for office. They decide to run right before they start gathering petitions. They don't understand that they have skipped the strategic and planning phase of the campaign and jumped straight to execution. The process is self-selecting. Serious candidates who understand what it takes, run when the odds of them winning are increased -- i.e. scandal or open seat. Imposing a fund raising cap, can't help a candidate who doesn't understand the problem they are trying to solve.
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
===largely a result of repressive ballot access laws, no? ===
No.
Far greater problem is out-of-control gerrymandering.
But you have a point.
ac
· 8 months ago
"Of course, the whole contested campaign issue is largely a result of repressive ballot access laws, no?"
I hope you are joking. If so -- good one. Getting on the ballot requires the ability to read -- nothing more nothing less. If you can't get on the ballot - I don't want you writing legislation (or in il -- agreeing to mm's legislation).
BannedForLife
· 8 months ago
After "Let’s see..." you rattle off a litany of large campaign fund-raising totals. But what's your point? I'm lost. In the context of a discussion of the merits caps, don't you need to focus on large individual contributions?
ac
· 8 months ago
Oooops ... I was too quick on that one. If you are a third party candidate or if you want to be the mayor of chicago, I think it might be hard to get on the ballot due to the excessive number of signatures required.
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
BannedForLife, the Daily Herald's point was that caps would somehow reduce TV ads.
===In the context of a discussion of the merits caps, don’t you need to focus on large individual contributions? ===
Scroll down a bit and you'll see my support for a higher cap and why, which addresses your point.
BannedForLife
· 8 months ago
i guess its a GOOD THING that folks have a place online where they can hang out and feel safe discussing how stoopid caps are or how stoopid you have to be to be kicked off the ballot by well-funded legal teams
BannedForLife
· 8 months ago
"the Daily Herald’s point was that caps would somehow reduce TV ads."
ok, agreed, that's goofy, but i think the DH editors were making a lame attempt at getting chuckle out of a reader rather than a cogent argument with that
Rich Miller
· 8 months ago
If it was humor, I didn't laugh.
Wow
· 8 months ago
"Kicked off the ballot by well funded legal teams."
I have been apart of both sides of that. Follow the law. Anyone can get a voter list from a county clerk. Only let the person who answers the door sign (and check their name first), don't camp out at a wal-mart, a train station, or an airport (which i have seen done).
It isn't rocket science!
Squideshi
· 8 months ago
=== Far greater problem is out-of-control gerrymandering ===
I would agree that this is a serious problem; but what's the solution--citizen commissions to draw district, computer randomized districts, or something else?
=== I hope you are joking. If so — good one. Getting on the ballot requires the ability to read — nothing more nothing less. ===
It doesn't require collecting an unreasonable amount of signatures in an unreasonable amount of time? What if you're running as an Independent?
=== I have been apart of both sides of that. Follow the law. ===
It's not really that simple. Well funded legal teams make random frivolous challenges to petition signatures and sheets; and in our system, that automatically puts the burden of proof on the candidate to prove the signatures are valid, by going back and doing things like collecting affidavits. If you don't have a well funded legal team, it can be quite an effort.
Wow
· 8 months ago
Sorry but you haven't done it in a while. The state board of elections actually has the signatures on file electronically so anyone can go in and check. Does it sometimes take legwork to get affidavits sign -- yes. Case in point where the little guy won was the socialist who ran against Frerichs & Judy Myers in 2006 ... there have been some other greens that have fought the machine and stayed on the ballot as well (helped them a bit in 2008 as a matter of fact).
ac
· 8 months ago
===i guess its a GOOD THING that folks have a place online where they can hang out and feel safe discussing how stoopid ... === and ===It’s not really that simple. Well funded legal teams make random frivolous challenges to petition signatures and sheets... === I am sorry. I was a little too quick and I didn't think beyond the cases I have personally witnessed. The number of signatures required for independents & third-party candidates are waaaaaaaay too high. And I am sure there are plenty of cases where "well funded legal teams make random frivolous challenges ... ". However, I am amazed when I see somebody running for a very local office collecting signatures at a grocery store OR when their petition sheet doesn't have the required language.
Louis G. Atsaves
· 8 months ago
Caps, incumbents and challengers? Melissa Bean v. Phil Crane? Or was that simply neglecting his back yard?
Fixit
· 8 months ago
Who cares how much money they give for campaign contributions as long as all the money raised for the campaign is given to the state after the election is over. This will help balance the budget and make for a level playing field for the next election.
Squideshi
· 8 months ago
=== Does it sometimes take legwork to get affidavits sign — yes. ===
More than just a little legwork. The Greens had a very well organized effort in order to stay on the ballot. It was no small feat to defend their signatures for Governor in 2006.
wordslinger
· 8 months ago
My experience at newspapers has been that when someone gets on an editorial board, they start smoking pipes, wearing monocles and lounging about in leather-elbowed tweed jackets. In other words, they stop learning and just start "editororializing."
All Comments
This is your area of expertise. I, and most of my acquaintences, no longer expect to be enlightened by reading newspapers. If they have subscriptions at all, they do for the local news, police beat reports, and local ads.
In these cases, I have been seeing locals reading local news, but balancing what they read with whom they know, what they believe, and their personal experiences. This level of cynicism is probably not new, yet it has become open and publically accepted.
So, after a decade of this, it seems that newspapers and journalists have about as much credibility as Vince, the Sham-Wow! guy. What newspapers are printing, citizens are not buying.
We are seeing a real change occuring.
It's your blog, you're within your rights, it's natural & normal for a subscription-based service to adopt some of the positions of the subscriber base.
Make it zero. No one can give any money to anyone in politics.
However, that by itself ignores how current incumbents a) still can go on media; b) still can send out taxpayer-financed mailings to their constituents; c) still have a bunch of outside interest groups who can engage in their own independent campaigns; d) will just start out, whenever the caps are introduced, with whatever name recognition levels have been previously established by previous spending and / or media.
Against that, a challenger is going to do ... what, precisely? Unless he / she is a multi-millionaire, or the complete and utter lackey of an outside group who is thereby willing to pour thousands into the race, independently, what chance does the challenger have?
Is the goal of reform to prevent people who do get elected from doing corrupt stuff? Or to make it easier for challengers to win?
Both are absolutely essential.
There may be something else necessary to level the playing field for challengers vis-a-vis incumbents.
Why do you believe making it easier for challengers to beat incumbents is an essential component to reducing corruption?
Many reasons. Here's one: Too-comfortable incumbents can often be less responsive to the will of the people. Here's another: There just aren't many contested campaigns in this state, which deprives voters of real choices.
And as far as removing all money from politics please see Buckley v. Valeo which says that would be against the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.
Also, on public funding you would need to grab hold of your socks. The current check off doesn’t have the money in it to fund our presidential races adequately which is lucky since the winners lately haven’t gone that route. They basically just raise money for the conventions.
Sorry grumpy Friday rant on a topic I love to argue.
Of course, the whole contested campaign issue is largely a result of repressive ballot access laws, no?
I don't think the caps are a bad idea when used to limit influence. However, I agree with Rich that they can (and are) easily be circumvented. The concept that it will be easier for challengers to mount an effective campaign against an incumbent if we limit contributions is patently false and an old wives tale that losers tell to justify their poor showing at the polls. The vast majority of challengers (in my very limited experience) don't understand the project they are undertaking when running for office. They decide to run right before they start gathering petitions. They don't understand that they have skipped the strategic and planning phase of the campaign and jumped straight to execution.
The process is self-selecting. Serious candidates who understand what it takes, run when the odds of them winning are increased -- i.e. scandal or open seat. Imposing a fund raising cap, can't help a candidate who doesn't understand the problem they are trying to solve.
No.
Far greater problem is out-of-control gerrymandering.
But you have a point.
I hope you are joking. If so -- good one. Getting on the ballot requires the ability to read -- nothing more nothing less. If you can't get on the ballot - I don't want you writing legislation (or in il -- agreeing to mm's legislation).
===In the context of a discussion of the merits caps, don’t you need to focus on large individual contributions? ===
Scroll down a bit and you'll see my support for a higher cap and why, which addresses your point.
ok, agreed, that's goofy, but i think the DH editors were making a lame attempt at getting chuckle out of a reader rather than a cogent argument with that
I have been apart of both sides of that. Follow the law. Anyone can get a voter list from a county clerk. Only let the person who answers the door sign (and check their name first), don't camp out at a wal-mart, a train station, or an airport (which i have seen done).
It isn't rocket science!
I would agree that this is a serious problem; but what's the solution--citizen commissions to draw district, computer randomized districts, or something else?
=== I hope you are joking. If so — good one. Getting on the ballot requires the ability to read — nothing more nothing less. ===
It doesn't require collecting an unreasonable amount of signatures in an unreasonable amount of time? What if you're running as an Independent?
=== I have been apart of both sides of that. Follow the law. ===
It's not really that simple. Well funded legal teams make random frivolous challenges to petition signatures and sheets; and in our system, that automatically puts the burden of proof on the candidate to prove the signatures are valid, by going back and doing things like collecting affidavits. If you don't have a well funded legal team, it can be quite an effort.
and
===It’s not really that simple. Well funded legal teams make random frivolous challenges to petition signatures and sheets... ===
I am sorry. I was a little too quick and I didn't think beyond the cases I have personally witnessed. The number of signatures required for independents & third-party candidates are waaaaaaaay too high. And I am sure there are plenty of cases where "well funded legal teams make random frivolous challenges ... ". However, I am amazed when I see somebody running for a very local office collecting signatures at a grocery store OR when their petition sheet doesn't have the required language.
More than just a little legwork. The Greens had a very well organized effort in order to stay on the ballot. It was no small feat to defend their signatures for Governor in 2006.