Campaign Finance reform

Using Subjectivity to make more Subjects

     There is a constant drumbeat in many circles about how we need to have "campaign finance reform" because of all of the money involved. This statement implies a diagnosis that raises many subjective and objective questions :

Subjective	Is this diagnosis too narrow? Too wide? or completely off target?
	Is too much money the problem?
Objective	Should private access to politicians be granted to those who pay large sums or who supposedly broker many votes for that access?
	Is the problem that the federal government and politicians are too heavily involved in micro management and social engineering?
	Is this issue more properly termed, "How do we promote reasonable and unincumbered political speech?"

    Undoubtably there are many other questions and perspectives that might be asked or offered on this issue, but for the sake of argument, assume those noted above are a reasonable sample of the problems in campaign financing that "some" recognize need fixing.  

Subjective versus Objective -- Feelings versus Logic

     Like most complex issues, campaign financing can be viewed from subjective and objective perspectives. The subjective is largely based upon feelings, the objective is largely based logic.  

Subjective

Objective

Subjectively, when one looks out to the horizon of ones view, the world it appears flat.  One can make reasonable and subjective arguments (assuming debating the subjective has any value) on either side of whether or not there is too little or too much money in politics as well as whether or not the diagnosis is too narrow or too wide.      As one might expect, the subjective perspective is the position taken for contemporary political maneuvering of the populace by our PRESSident, in virtual complete denial of any objective perspectives of campaign financing.  This approach has proven successful because everyone has an subjective opinion on the evils or good of money, no matter how much they do or don't know about the massive federal social engineering that is going on.      Because the PRESSident doesn't make much of an effort to make the average Bubba aware of the degree of social engineering of the federal government, most Bubbas remain ignorant of the control that government has over their lives and liberties. If the liberal PRESS doesn't see anything wrong with back room wheeling and dealing by unions and other leftish collectives, that will never be made much of an issue in the PRESS.  Only when issues are in opposition to the dominant political perspective of the PRESS will anything of significance be made of such activities. If your goal is to dominate a population. Ignorance of facts is bliss Following your Feelings is ok

Objectively we know the world is round.   Yet very few in our population have actually traveled around the world.  Objectively we know that our economy is a dynamic and ever changing environment -- yet very few, if any, fully understand its full nature.    Objectively, anyone who is aware of the reams and reams of federal regulations, laws and tax code would logically conclude that we have a problem of too much micromanagement by the federal (and state) government.  Additionally, few can logically argue that unlimited buying of political favors through backroom wheeling and dealing should be allowed in an open democracy.     The issue in campaign finance reform should be decided on the objective issues involved.   The federal goverment   has too much control of our lives    The average Bubba cannot possibly know all of the federal rules and regulations that there lives are subject to.  The campaign finance problem exists largely because the federal government is too big, too complex, and has been allowed to become such without reasonable enforcement of the liberties as well as checks and balances envisioned by our founding fathers in the Bill of Rights.        Those with political money (or political power) to donate for campaigns seek to have politicians create a niche for their particular collective, generally in complete denial of such privileges to individuals or other collective groups in society. This distorts the process and counterpoise of 'unincumbered political speech'.  Any change in the rules for campaign financing will alter the rules of free (free -- as in liberty, not as without cost) political speech and have a marked effect on who has the balance of power in determining the future political direction of our nation.    Don't be fooled by the subjective.

     The logical goal of campaign finance reform is to promote the general welfare of the nation through individual responsibility and liberties via the promotion of free and fair political speech.  Free speech means free as in liberty, not free as with no cost.  One must agree to the dictionary definition of Fair -- "unbiased, free from dishonesty, without prejudice."  From this foundation a reasonable set of reforms for fair and reasonable political speech can be derived :

Self enforcing environment -- Promotion of unincumbered policitical speech should not rely upon overly restrictive regulatory agencies that restrict the political process.

PAC & Union accountability : No one should be required to contribute to political speech that is counter to their own political will. PACs and unions should be required to conduct reasonable balanced and timely polling of their membership on their perspectives on issues before making any political statements that one way or the other connotate how that collective feels on any issue. The process and results of such polling should be open for reasonable public inspection.

Promote debate (not buying) of issues -- PACs, corporations or individuals who receive a certain amount of fiscal support or benefit from government should be required to have a third of their political funding tossed into a general kitty for all politicians to use. This would discourage collectives from "buying" legislators. At the same time this would promote a counterpoise for reasonable debate on important issues.

Limits on donations -- One should be able to contribute as much as one wants to politics so long as you are donating your own hard earned money and that you are not making yourself destitute and a potential ward of the state in the process.  The recieving party should be required to make full disclosure of contributors in a timely and public fashion.

Sunshine provisions. All donations are made public within 72 hours of cashing such a donation.

Illegal donations to candidates or collectives (including violations of sunshine process) and any penalties assessed should be put in a general fund to be distributed in a timely and fair fashion to opposing candidates or collectives.  Illegal donations should not be returned to the donating party as this can and has been used as a means to temporarily bootstrap a political campaign with illegal funds that will be replaced by legal donations at a later date.

Constitutional Testing -- It seems logical that those running for a job that requires swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution should should be tested for their understanding of the Constitution as part of the application process.  Many of our campaign financing problems are related to politiicians making promises to people that are really out of the realm of activities for government as defined by our Constitution.

Positive debate :  The rules that prohibit PACs and other parties from promoting positive campaigns for a candidate or proposition should be repealed. Too often, negative campaigns are the result of the unnecessary and unreasonable restriction of positive political speech. The negative 5 second sound bite campaigns that result from this restriction of free speech do not promote an environment where complex issues can be reasonably and fully debated.  To frequently, the result of negative campaigns are unworkable and simplistic answers to today's complex problems.

   If you believe in logic and individualism, the above may seem to one set of solutions to promoting fair and unincumbered political speech. Other solutions are also possible (such as a Taxpayer Directed Budget and a virtual Congress ) whose goal is to increase the power of individuals in guiding the future of our nation.  But I digress to other perspectives than the subjective versus objective.

    In summary, don't be fooled by your feelings, feeling good about something doesn't make it fair or right.  Think about what is at stake.  Campaign financing should be from the perspective of how to promote free speech through clearly defined and achievable objective goals that are consistent with the promotion of individual responsibility and liberty as framed in our Constitution.  Subjective solutions by their very nature rarely solve anything.  Subjectivity is a diversionary tactic to the underlying and hidden objective goals of those promoting the subjectivity.  Subjective goals are generally inconsistent with the objective logic of our Constitution and are promoted as part of the effort to seduce fools into the mobocracy so as to become the defining policy directing our nation's future.  Mobs are not ruled by logic, but by the feelings of a few leaders.  

     This is not as much a play of words, as it is a play for the future of our nation.:)