Voters hate political ads. I doubt “more political ads!” polls well. Especially when taxpayers will be paying for them.
"Democrats want more money influencing politics!" is also a bad look. Yes, I know the “more money” will be to counterbalance the money already rigging the system, but it’s still a bad look.
Optics aside, is this actually going to lead to good policy outcomes? I worry that candidates running in a bunch of genuinely uncompetitive races (the Republican challenger to Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco, for example) will have a lot of messed up incentives to fundraise so that they can spend the 6x Federal matching funds on supporting a candidate in a more competitive district, or just on a bunch of wing-nut welfare.
Are there going to be sufficient safeguards to stop this from being used to give the wealth of millionaires a 6x amplification? And will those safeguards be strong enough to survive Supreme Court scrutiny?
How will this apply to third parties? It seems to me that you’d need to exclude them to have good policy outcomes, but that’s another bad look…
Those are all great questions of course. I honestly don’t know how to reform campaign financing but I’m glad more knowledgeable folks are still working on it. Or hopefully they’re more knowledgeable. The amount of money spent in every campaign gets to be a bit staggering so it’d be great to somehow reign it in.
Yeah but this doesn’t matter. They say they hate political ads but guess what, they’re willing to be influenced by them. That’s why so much time and money is spent on them. it’s kind of up there with people saying they’re not influenced by marketing, because no one wants to really admit they are.
A key part of the proposal is that candidates are not eligible if they accept any donations over $1000. So it’s not necessarily “more money” or “more ads”. It’s money and ads coming from small donors instead of big donors.
Greetings. It is I, David “47” Koch, happily making a “small donation” of $1,000 to each and every House and Senate race. I appreciate that the federal taxpayer will be supporting my political advocacy by sextupling the power of my donations, and doubly appreciate that Democrats will be the face of that policy.
Mind you, it’s not like donating $1,000 to each and every House and Senate race is the limit of my political spending. Lord no. But I’ll be sure to spend that money in support of Republican campaigns, instead of giving it directly to the campaigns.
(I also plan to donate $1,000 to all the crazy Green party candidates in close districts. You’re welcome, America.)
The thing is, Mr. Koch, that Senator Smith doesn’t really care about the other 534 legislators you also support. Senator Smith only cares about Senator Smith’s donors and Senator Smith’s constituents. Furthermore, the Senator was legally required to decline PAC money in order to take advantage of sextupled donations.
So as far as Senator Smith is concerned, your $1000 is no better than the $1000 from many other donors. Please take a number, and wait your turn.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Democratic Party challenging the Republican Party for political power in the United States of America, because the idea that a Republican Senator wouldn’t take a phone call from David Koch is absurd, $1,000 limit or no.
Rather, this is about Democrats challenging other Democrats, and trying to craft a narrative in which a political candidate can be ethically sourced. In that context I guess it makes sense as an idea to fire up the base, or whatever. But the idea that you’ll magically muzzle big money in the face of a hostile Supreme Court is a fantasy.
It doesn’t matter whether there are still candidates that are bought, as long as there are also candidates that are not bought, who have reasonable chances of victory. Spending, past a certain level, has significantly decreased value to a campaign, so you are making a big dent in the influence of the elite by allowing the candidates who rely solely on support from lots of individual donors to compete with those who get outside money (without having to catch lightning in a bottle like Bernie or Beto…who both lost!).
I don’t think it’s a bad look at all to say that you are asking politicians to do their fundraising by convincing tens of thousands of people to support them, rather than by convincing four or five really rich people to do so.
Biden sounding more and more like he’s leaning towards running. His national polling is strong, but I wonder about polling in key primary states. I keep seeing poll evidence that Iowa and New Hampshire want a generational change in the Democratic party, which probably leaves folks like Biden, Bernie, and Warren out, if so.
Yeah, Biden isn’t as good a candidate as he is a potential candidate. People will love him until he’s actually running, then not so much. Besides, he breaks my rule about septuagenarians and the White House. No more cognitive function failure, please.
Some NH Democrats are trying to recruit Beto. His children are between 8-12, so I very much doubt he’ll run.
Of all the potential Dem candidates, Biden is by far my least favorite.
I predict whichever candidate wins South Carolina will be the prohibitive favorite (assuming CA doesn’t change it’s primary date, which if it does will change everything.)
I agree with you on Biden as a potential candidate vs Biden as an actual candidate. When he’s actually got to give policy stump speeches, they’re just not real sharp or pointed. They tend to be pretty dull.
Beto/Gillum or Beto/Abrams. Fuck it, why not. I don’t see the old guard doing any better, and it’s possible to vault from a loss to a victory (see: Abe, Honest).
