Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Political discussions
Post Reply
Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 25287
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Republic of Western Sussex

Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by Ivytalk »

Assume the Donks capture both houses of Congress and the presidency. Assume further that, among other freedom-crushing measures on their agenda, they persuade a pliable or “packed” SCOTUS to reverse Citizens United. The Donks then set out to implement public funding of all federal elections. Question: how could such a system ever be implemented in a way that avoids entrenching the two major political parties and gives independent/third party candidates a fair shake?

This is a serious question, We have already seen how the “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates has set such an arbitrarily high threshold for such candidates that you’ll practically never see a solid independent candidate on the debate stage ( Perot was the only exception that I can remember). How would tax dollars be allocated among candidates for federal office in public financing schemes? With the same arbitrary thresholds? If so, that’s just a gift to the duopoly at taxpayer expense that does precisely nothing to improve either the quality of the candidates or the free flow of political ideas.
“Sure. I was wrong.” — 89Hen 7/27/2020

User avatar
Winterborn
Level3
Level3
Posts: 3876
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by Winterborn »

Let me finish my beer and I will get back to you on this topic..... :D
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

"Cynicism is the smoke that rises from the ashes of burned out dreams.” - Anon

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14105
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by GannonFan »

Ivytalk wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:42 am
Assume the Donks capture both houses of Congress and the presidency. Assume further that, among other freedom-crushing measures on their agenda, they persuade a pliable or “packed” SCOTUS to reverse Citizens United. The Donks then set out to implement public funding of all federal elections. Question: how could such a system ever be implemented in a way that avoids entrenching the two major political parties and gives independent/third party candidates a fair shake?

This is a serious question, We have already seen how the “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates has set such an arbitrarily high threshold for such candidates that you’ll practically never see a solid independent candidate on the debate stage ( Perot was the only exception that I can remember). How would tax dollars be allocated among candidates for federal office in public financing schemes? With the same arbitrary thresholds? If so, that’s just a gift to the duopoly at taxpayer expense that does precisely nothing to improve either the quality of the candidates or the free flow of political ideas.
Why would you think that the bolded part would be part of the interest of either party? The implied goal of both parties are to win elections. And then stay in power. Period. There is no other, higher goal in mind. At least we got lucky at times in the past where quality candidates coincided with these goals, but that was happenstance.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
Winterborn
Level3
Level3
Posts: 3876
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by Winterborn »

GannonFan wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:38 pm
Ivytalk wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:42 am
Assume the Donks capture both houses of Congress and the presidency. Assume further that, among other freedom-crushing measures on their agenda, they persuade a pliable or “packed” SCOTUS to reverse Citizens United. The Donks then set out to implement public funding of all federal elections. Question: how could such a system ever be implemented in a way that avoids entrenching the two major political parties and gives independent/third party candidates a fair shake?

This is a serious question, We have already seen how the “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates has set such an arbitrarily high threshold for such candidates that you’ll practically never see a solid independent candidate on the debate stage ( Perot was the only exception that I can remember). How would tax dollars be allocated among candidates for federal office in public financing schemes? With the same arbitrary thresholds? If so, that’s just a gift to the duopoly at taxpayer expense that does precisely nothing to improve either the quality of the candidates or the free flow of political ideas.
Why would you think that the bolded part would be part of the interest of either party? The implied goal of both parties are to win elections. And then stay in power. Period. There is no other, higher goal in mind. At least we got lucky at times in the past where quality candidates coincided with these goals, but that was happenstance.
*is

;)

Otherwise I agree. They have no vested interest in giving a third party any type of fair shake, as it would cut into the pie they have divided up for themselves.
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

"Cynicism is the smoke that rises from the ashes of burned out dreams.” - Anon

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein

User avatar
TheDancinMonarch
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 4700
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:23 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
Location: Norfolk VA

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by TheDancinMonarch »

GannonFan wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:38 pm
Ivytalk wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:42 am
Assume the Donks capture both houses of Congress and the presidency. Assume further that, among other freedom-crushing measures on their agenda, they persuade a pliable or “packed” SCOTUS to reverse Citizens United. The Donks then set out to implement public funding of all federal elections. Question: how could such a system ever be implemented in a way that avoids entrenching the two major political parties and gives independent/third party candidates a fair shake?

This is a serious question, We have already seen how the “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates has set such an arbitrarily high threshold for such candidates that you’ll practically never see a solid independent candidate on the debate stage ( Perot was the only exception that I can remember). How would tax dollars be allocated among candidates for federal office in public financing schemes? With the same arbitrary thresholds? If so, that’s just a gift to the duopoly at taxpayer expense that does precisely nothing to improve either the quality of the candidates or the free flow of political ideas.
Why would you think that the bolded part would be part of the interest of either party? The implied goal of both parties are to win elections. And then stay in power. Period. There is no other, higher goal in mind. At least we got lucky at times in the past where quality candidates coincided with these goals, but that was happenstance.
Boy ain't that the truth!
Image

JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by JoltinJoe »

IMO, packing the Supreme Court will be a dire move that will trigger outright rebellion in the middle states.

The Democrats need to take a good look from where most of our troops are drawn before asking them to quell rebellions in the middle states.

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14105
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by GannonFan »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:40 am
IMO, packing the Supreme Court will be a dire move that will trigger outright rebellion in the middle states.

The Democrats need to take a good look from where most of our troops are drawn before asking them to quell rebellions in the middle states.
I agree that court packing could be disastrous. I would hope that the chaos and craziness could be tempered with a Trump loss in November, but I also fear that the Dems don't have much of a plan outside of just beating Trump so things could really go anywhere with a Dem victory, both good and bad. Interesting times indeed.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by JoltinJoe »

GannonFan wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:52 am
JoltinJoe wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:40 am
IMO, packing the Supreme Court will be a dire move that will trigger outright rebellion in the middle states.

The Democrats need to take a good look from where most of our troops are drawn before asking them to quell rebellions in the middle states.
I agree that court packing could be disastrous. I would hope that the chaos and craziness could be tempered with a Trump loss in November, but I also fear that the Dems don't have much of a plan outside of just beating Trump so things could really go anywhere with a Dem victory, both good and bad. Interesting times indeed.
Packing the Supreme Court will place 2d Amendment supporters in a "use them or lose them" position. They will perceive any effort to pack the court as an attempt to reverse Heller and to re-interpret the 2d Amendment so it does not authorize a personal right to gun ownership. At that point, they will "use" them. When you look from where our members of our national guard and troops come, there is every reason to believe that they will largely be sympathetic to those who read the 2d Amendment as assuring a personal right.

And yes, I know many troops come from California and New York. But they are coming from the vast red geographical areas of those states -- not the blue urban areas.

Urban area New Yorkers and Californians are naive if they think they will be able to enforce their societal goals against the less populous areas of this nation without rebellion. This is a very dangerous, not interesting, time.

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14105
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by GannonFan »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:03 am
GannonFan wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:52 am


I agree that court packing could be disastrous. I would hope that the chaos and craziness could be tempered with a Trump loss in November, but I also fear that the Dems don't have much of a plan outside of just beating Trump so things could really go anywhere with a Dem victory, both good and bad. Interesting times indeed.
Packing the Supreme Court will place 2d Amendment supporters in a "use them or lose them" position. They will perceive any effort to pack the court as an attempt to reverse Heller and to re-interpret the 2d Amendment so it does not authorize a personal right to gun ownership. At that point, they will "use" them. When you look from where our members of our national guard and troops come, there is every reason to believe that they will largely be sympathetic to those who read the 2d Amendment as assuring a personal right.

And yes, I know many troops come from California and New York. But they are coming from the vast red geographical areas of those states -- not the blue urban areas.

Urban area New Yorkers and Californians are naive if they think they will be able to enforce their societal goals against the less populous areas of this nation without rebellion. This is a very dangerous, not interesting, time.
I don't think it gets that far. No one would be sending in people to round up the guns, no matter what the SCOTUS, even a packed one, does. And that's assuming that a packed SCOTUS even reverses Heller and re-interprets the 2nd amendment. You're reaching into hysteria level here right now, but I suppose that certainly matches the time we live in at the moment.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by JoltinJoe »

GannonFan wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:08 am
JoltinJoe wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:03 am


Packing the Supreme Court will place 2d Amendment supporters in a "use them or lose them" position. They will perceive any effort to pack the court as an attempt to reverse Heller and to re-interpret the 2d Amendment so it does not authorize a personal right to gun ownership. At that point, they will "use" them. When you look from where our members of our national guard and troops come, there is every reason to believe that they will largely be sympathetic to those who read the 2d Amendment as assuring a personal right.

And yes, I know many troops come from California and New York. But they are coming from the vast red geographical areas of those states -- not the blue urban areas.

Urban area New Yorkers and Californians are naive if they think they will be able to enforce their societal goals against the less populous areas of this nation without rebellion. This is a very dangerous, not interesting, time.
I don't think it gets that far. No one would be sending in people to round up the guns, no matter what the SCOTUS, even a packed one, does. And that's assuming that a packed SCOTUS even reverses Heller and re-interprets the 2nd amendment. You're reaching into hysteria level here right now, but I suppose that certainly matches the time we live in at the moment.
The Southern states won't secede just because we elect Lincoln, they said.

People aren't going to wait until the Court actually reverses Heller.

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 25287
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Republic of Western Sussex

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by Ivytalk »

All of the foregoing is very interesting, but nobody has answered my question yet. I can only infer that, as I suspected, public financing will just entrench the two main parties at taxpayer expense.
“Sure. I was wrong.” — 89Hen 7/27/2020

User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
A.K.A.: Unification88
Location: On the foggy woggy banks of the Limpopo River

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by UNI88 »

Ivytalk wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:06 am
All of the foregoing is very interesting, but nobody has answered my question yet. I can only infer that, as I suspected, public financing will just entrench the two main parties at taxpayer expense.
I hope not but I suspect you're right. Unfortunately we'll let it happen.

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 44087
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by dbackjon »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:40 am
IMO, packing the Supreme Court will be a dire move that will trigger outright rebellion in the middle states.

The Democrats need to take a good look from where most of our troops are drawn before asking them to quell rebellions in the middle states.
So the GOP can pack the Supreme Court at will, but the Democrats can't?

If McConnell hadn't played politics and given Obama's nominees hearings and confirmations, there wouldn't be talk of "court packing". But as usual, the GOP can fuck over the country all they want, but it's the Democrats that are somehow the bad guys.


Oh, and IVY - Citizen's United was a horrid decision that SHOULD be overturned.


And public financing of elections (with no corporate donations allowed) is the only way to reverse the US from becoming a worse plutocracy than we already are.
:thumb:

User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 44087
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: Killer Snail
Location: Scottsdale

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by dbackjon »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:04 am
GannonFan wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:08 am


I don't think it gets that far. No one would be sending in people to round up the guns, no matter what the SCOTUS, even a packed one, does. And that's assuming that a packed SCOTUS even reverses Heller and re-interprets the 2nd amendment. You're reaching into hysteria level here right now, but I suppose that certainly matches the time we live in at the moment.
The Southern states won't secede just because we elect Lincoln, they said.

People aren't going to wait until the Court actually reverses Heller.
Heller SHOULD be reversed. And reversing it just puts us back to where we were before it- and no one was grabbing guns then. A little Dramatic, aren't we?
:thumb:

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14105
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by GannonFan »

dbackjon wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:09 am
JoltinJoe wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:40 am
IMO, packing the Supreme Court will be a dire move that will trigger outright rebellion in the middle states.

The Democrats need to take a good look from where most of our troops are drawn before asking them to quell rebellions in the middle states.
So the GOP can pack the Supreme Court at will, but the Democrats can't?

If McConnell hadn't played politics and given Obama's nominees hearings and confirmations, there wouldn't be talk of "court packing". But as usual, the GOP can fuck over the country all they want, but it's the Democrats that are somehow the bad guys.
What GOP court packing? Are you referring to when the GOP Congress in 1869 moved the number from 8 to 9? You still haven't recovered from that move some 151 years ago?

And as for the politics, we've been over this before. It was a GOP led Senate. The Constitution says the Senate has to approve the pick from the President. The Senate was not going to approve Merrick Garland (a perfectly average justice - nothing special). I think they should've voted too just to have it on record, but the outcome was the same, they said no to Garland. Perfectly acceptable thing for a Senate to do. Obama didn't pick anyone else. They probably would've said no to anyone else as well, but again, that's what the Senate can do. The American voters were so upset about this that they returned a majority GOP Senate and they elected a GOP President.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
Skjellyfetti
Anal
Anal
Posts: 13098
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
I am a fan of: Appalachian

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by Skjellyfetti »

GannonFan wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:58 am
The American voters were so upset about this that they returned a majority GOP Senate and they elected a GOP President.
The Electoral College elected Trump President. American voters voted for Clinton.

And, the entire Senate wasn't up for election in 2016. Democrats gained 2 seats (IL and NH).
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
Cid1990 wrote:It is going to be a sad day for a lot of people when all that comes of all of this is Flynn getting whacked.

Mueller is going to take a beating on the left before this business is over

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14105
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by GannonFan »

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:14 pm
GannonFan wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:58 am
The American voters were so upset about this that they returned a majority GOP Senate and they elected a GOP President.
The Electoral College elected Trump President. American voters voted for Clinton.

And, the entire Senate wasn't up for election in 2016. Democrats gained 2 seats (IL and NH).
Thank you. I have read the Constitution and am familiar with how our government is set up.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

User avatar
Col Hogan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11700
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:29 am
I am a fan of: William & Mary
Location: Republic of Texas

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by Col Hogan »

dbackjon wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:11 am
JoltinJoe wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:04 am


The Southern states won't secede just because we elect Lincoln, they said.

People aren't going to wait until the Court actually reverses Heller.
Heller SHOULD be reversed. And reversing it just puts us back to where we were before it- and no one was grabbing guns then. A little Dramatic, aren't we?
I love when you keep saying something thinking it will become “the truth”...

And while you are currently correct that no one is grabbing guns RIGHT NOW, the democrats are setting up the playing field so they can start as soon as they can grab the Senate (if they keep the House).

Let’s start with HR 5717... here’s a link to this steaming pile of shit... https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... 373F723585

But to sum it up, HR 5717 will:

- Create a nationwide gun registry (makes it easier to confiscate guns)
- Ban almost all semiautomatic rifles (Whoops, Jon...I thought they were not going to “grab guns”...)
- Institute a federal Magazine Ban
- Implement national “Red Flag” gun confiscation (What happened to the 4th Amendment, Jon...out the door, I guess)
- Tax guns at 30% and ammo at 50% (Name one other legal product taxed at ridiculous rates)
- Ban people under 21 from exercising their Second Amendment rights (All Constitutional rights should be the same...voting, drinking, 2A)
- Ration guns by making it illegal to purchase more than one firearm in a 30-day period (What other legal items is rationed by the federal government?)
- Force “Safe Storage” requirements on gun owners (What, you going to have “Safe Storage” police raiding homes???
- Ban suppressors
- Force FFLs to spend massive amounts of money to comply with new “security” requirements (To drive small business out of business)
- Expand “Gun Free Zones” (These really work right now... :rofl: )

If elected, Uncle Joe has already said he’s going to put Robert “You bet we’ll take your guns” O’Rourke in charge of implementing his gun policy...

So, if anybody cares about their Second Amendment rights, they had better keep the Senate in Republicans hands at minimum...

P.S. I think Republicans are just above whale shit...its just that the Democrats are lower than whale shit, so I have to hold my nose and support those with an (R) after their name...
“Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Aristotle

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

User avatar
Col Hogan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11700
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:29 am
I am a fan of: William & Mary
Location: Republic of Texas

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by Col Hogan »

Sorry, Ivy, for adding to the hijack of your thread...

But I could not let that clap trap go unchallenged
“Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Aristotle

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 25287
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Republic of Western Sussex

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by Ivytalk »

Col Hogan wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:33 pm
Sorry, Ivy, for adding to the hijack of your thread...

But I could not let that clap trap go unchallenged
No worries, Hogie. dback needs a new Midol scrip. He should be doing somersaults about the SCOTUS rulings on the LA abortion law and bringing gays and trannies within the scope of Title VII. But he only cherry-picks the rulings that go against his tribe. Typical. :ohno:
“Sure. I was wrong.” — 89Hen 7/27/2020

JoltinJoe
Level4
Level4
Posts: 6818
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:42 pm

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by JoltinJoe »

Ivytalk wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:43 pm
Col Hogan wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:33 pm
Sorry, Ivy, for adding to the hijack of your thread...

But I could not let that clap trap go unchallenged
No worries, Hogie. dback needs a new Midol scrip. He should be doing somersaults about the SCOTUS rulings on the LA abortion law and bringing gays and trannies within the scope of Title VII. But he only cherry-picks the rulings that go against his tribe. Typical. :ohno:
Sorry if I sidetracked your discussion. I think you are 100%.

Just the mention of packing the court for political purposes gets my engines running though. Packing the court, so it becomes an effective rubber-stamp for the legislative objectives of either party, ends our three-branch system of government, and collapses the court into a de facto arm of the legislature. It is the worst thing that can happen to our federal government.

User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 14105
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Hypothetical Public Financing Question

Post by GannonFan »

JoltinJoe wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:35 am
Ivytalk wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:43 pm


No worries, Hogie. dback needs a new Midol scrip. He should be doing somersaults about the SCOTUS rulings on the LA abortion law and bringing gays and trannies within the scope of Title VII. But he only cherry-picks the rulings that go against his tribe. Typical. :ohno:
Sorry if I sidetracked your discussion. I think you are 100%.

Just the mention of packing the court for political purposes gets my engines running though. Packing the court, so it becomes an effective rubber-stamp for the legislative objectives of either party, ends our three-branch system of government, and collapses the court into a de facto arm of the legislature. It is the worst thing that can happen to our federal government.
In a rarity, I can agree full heartedly here with JJ - court packing, i.e. the purposeful manipulation of the SCOTUS to gain a desired policy outcome that wouldn't be possible without that purposeful manipulation, would be an absolute disaster of the structure of government.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation

Post Reply