Reform our campaign finance system for all elective offices

The amount of money spent on campaigns for most levels of government has increased greatly recently.  However, the first concern should be the transparency issues of the donors.

There are campaign rules from the Federal Election Commission and from the individual states, depending on what level of government a contested office is in.  The federal (national) offices' campaign regulations are now compromised due to a dis-functional FEC.

A better electoral system for all government office openings is public financing.  By freeing all candidates from campaign fundraising, they can focus on the voting public in their respective races.

For election day, vote and count manually

As noted in an earlier post, the American voter, in this age of technology, has had trouble using their polling stations.

Some waiting lines were too long due to a lack of enough voting machines.  Some have voted for the wrong candidate.  And you haven't known whether their voting calculations were correct.  The lack of full trust from the voter has been of increased concern.

The tried and true paper ballot system had proven to be mostly trustworthy.  Not only had it given the voter control of how they voted, it made the vote counting process more transparent.  Just because the voting technology became more sophisticated hasn't meant it's more accurate.

Open up the monied speeches of politicians

A common income from present and former political officeholders and leaders is giving speeches to groups in the private sector.  The amount for each speech varies by the politico; each one can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars; fundraiser speeches by office candidates can run into the millions.

Is it ethical to "cash in" political value he may hold?  Should he be more egalitarian, and contract only minimal fees for his speeches?  How important to the general public-- those not attending the event-- are these speeches?

Times change, and so do the speeches.  There should be more transparency to these events; the public needs to know what these important people have to say.

Judges and conflicts of interest

Right now, across the nation, private political donations are going to judicial candidates.  One can look at their campaigns' periodic financial reports; even so, some donor groups don't have to open up their donation information.

This unleashes corruption when court cases try judges' campaign donors.

When the plaintiff and the defense go to court on a case, they should determine whether its judges hold a conflict of interest in it.  They may open a reality that is too obvious to ignore.

Corporate propaganda

Have you ever wondered why large companies show commercials on Sunday morning political shows?

Don't forget that their primary drive is for the interest of their respective shareholders.  And that's it.  The commercials to the rest of us are pure propaganda.  Do they want lower taxes?  Do they want less regulation?  Are they against anti-trust laws?

Don't be easily taken by their messages to us.  Who are they really for?

When industry scientists are politicians

Politics is the only arena I know, where company scientists are lobbyists.

Take producers of crude oil.  They employ full-time only scientists that are willing to cut standard practices in order to put their employers in a good light.

Ah, the power of money to get exactly what you want, whether it's ethical practices or it isn't.

We can't vote if we don't know who donates (and why they donate)

Right now, corporations can donate anonymously and unlimited to political campaigns.

Also, right now people can give $25 directly to their candidate's campaign.

As a voter, which of the two donors should be honored?  Which donor can also be a voter?

* Of course, the Federal Election Commission would answer what is legal and what is not, if they weren't politically corrupt like they are now.

Releasing controversial news

Sometimes a legislator or agency is called to release information to the public.  If the info is controversial, a favorite tactic is to unload it during a slow news cycle, like the night before a holiday.

In other words, let "Joe" fall asleep on Friday night, then release the documents.  Then, perhaps, it is reported on C-Span only during that weekend.

So paradoxically, if the source considers the document controversial, releasing it after-hours only confirms to everybody the critical nature of that news.

Giving the info during business hours, up front, will otherwise laud you as a good transparent source for the public's interest.