Money and Politics
Who Owns Democracy?

A project of Information Renaissance and National Issues Forums Research




Welcome

About this Event

Join the Dialogue

Briefing Book

Search

Choice 1 Reflections

1. Were there areas of agreement or what you might call "common ground?"

  • Don A.
    I think there is somewhat agreement that its unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics but there doesn't seem to be any agreement that freedom of speech and the press is only preserved if people can promote their candidates to any extent they desire.
  • Byron Bagnell
    We seemed only to agree that the problem exists.
  • Harry Brown
    To me it seems that the idea of public funded--or "free TV " had condiderable support, but with some well thought out "rules of the road" to avoid abuse and or non-valid candidates. Some type of "litmus" test to identify genuine, viable candidates. Perhaps the current "party system" might be amdndable for this. Some changes that we would agree on or could support.
  • Rod Cameron
    Two areas seemed to be common ground to me: first, that we need more candidates, and better candidates. If the cost of campaigns is limiting the quality of leadership in this country, then we need to change something to address that problem; second, ultimately voters are responsible for being well-informed and involved. Can the fox be blamed if the farmer does not protect the hen house?
  • G Gocek
    The voice of the voter should not be overlooked in the ongoing discussion of public issues. A system driven to preserve the advantages of legislators, as opposed to the public interest, is dysfunctional. Significant sums of money are being spent in both electoral and legislative politics, but even contributors may not be getting their money's worth in a flawed system.
  • Denise Hood
    !. As Campaign Finace currently exists, there is a serious problem, and we need to do something to fix it. 2. Big hard money donors, Lobbies, PACS, Labor Unions and corporations are exerting too much influence over our elected officials, and we need to limit their influence. 3. People are feeling a "disconnect" from our government and our elected officials, and feel that the interests of those who "pay to play" are being heard, and our constituent interests are being ignored in the process. We are losing our voices and our representation to "big money." 4.A combination of public financing of elections/free airtime seemed to present a possible solution. 5.Our elected officials spend too much time raising money. Our House members are locked into "permanent campaign mode," because of the shortness of their terms in office. 6. Although there are exceptions, it seems that, for the most part, the candidate with the most money wins, and incumbents are favored over "challengers," thus many seats go unchallenged. 7. Some effort must be made to expand our thinking about campaign financing to INCLUDE third parties. It was pointed out that the present system perpetuates the two-party monopoly over campaign funds. 8. We should look to the handful of states that have already enacted their own versions of "Clean Elections" laws, which incorporate some sort of partial public funding. 9. There was more agreement that SOFT money should be regulated/reduced/eliminated, than about what should be done about HARD money. Some believed that the amount of Hard money that individuals should be permitted to contribute should be decreased, some thought it should be increased. Some thought it should be eliminated. And there was much discussion about any efforts to restrict/control/eliminate it as infringing on a person's Free Speech. 10. Many felt that any attempts to reduce soft money without TOTALLY eliminating it, would only encourage BOTH the PACS/Lobbies/corporations as well as our legislators themselves to just get a bit more "creative" and search for "wiggle room" that would defeat the whole purpose of the legislation. 11. People seemed to generally agree that campaign ads are TOO negative, and they would like to see less negativity and "attack" mentality in the ads.
  • Davis Jim
    Most of the comments seemed to "assume" a civic intent to donations. I wonder if a big part of the problem is contributions that have little or nothing to do with the contributor's role or beliefs as a citizen?
  • Davis Jim
    Most of the comments seemed to "assume" a civic intent to donations. I wonder if a big part of the problem is contributions that have little or nothing to do with the contributor's role or beliefs as a citizen?
  • Joan Johnson
    The common ground appeared to be something must be done around campaign finance and limiting spending by interest groups. There also seemed to be strong interest in having funding available for all candidates equally.
  • Ying-Ying Kao
    I think that many people realized the importance of preserving the rights of the people but also the need for improvements in campaign finance. I also noticed people agreeing that a fair system outweighs any claims that personal freedoms might be violated.
  • Al Kolwicz
    Many participants were quite willing to annoint some unknown people with unknown objectives with the powere to legislate what can be said and by whom. This is freightening to me. After all of the lives this nation has spent in the cause of freedom, it is inexcuseable that our institutions have so failed to pass on our mores to our people. Who shall decide who is a legitimate candidate? Who shall decide how much money a candidate should spend? Who shall decide which groups are entitled to speak for or against a candidate? As a nation we have bled to win these freedoms. We must bleed to preserve them.
  • Peter Luebke
    People generally seem to agree that there needs to be campaign finance reform. They feel that too much money is being spent by a few individuals and this might unduly impact upon the elections process.
  • Laurie Maak
    There is general agreement that... - the current system is unsatisfactory - it's the citizens responsibility to be better informed - costly television advertising has exacerbated the problem
  • Cindy O'Connor
    1. We agree that citizens are alienated from the electoral process. It is unclear why. Could be time, lack of political sophistication, a faillure of our schools to provide enough information about government and civic responsibility. 2. We agree that we need to find new ways to make contact. 3. We agree that the sources of campaign monies are troublesome, but we don't have consensus about how to address that issue. 4. There are many people who are really disgusted with our system.
  • Jay Oliver
    Very few. Perhaps a majority are uneasy with the present situation and would like to see something done, but there seems to be very little consensus on which specific reforms would be acceptable or constitutional, much less whether or not they would actually accomplish their intended purposes.
  • Jean Prokopow
    Many agreed that the excessive influence of special interests must be eliminated. Most seem to believe that money should not be equated with free speech, and thus money should be limited. Some felt TV should be required to give free time. Many thought that voters are apathetic because of their belief that they have no power to oppose special interests. Some participants believe, as do I, that we have lost democracy to special interests. It must be restored!
  • Susan Rice
    There seems to be common ground about placing limits on donations because of the threat of corruption connected with undue influence. I don't agree but I have not worked out an alternative solution that addresses these concerns. There seems to be common ground about the merits of reduced price on media time,despite the media saying they can't afford it. There seems to be common ground on the desire to have more citizens vote. There seems to be common ground on the merits of instant access to information of who gave what to who -- though I know we will discuss this more in the days ahead. There also seems to be common ground in the belief that wealth is evil because it causes evil. I don't agree with that either.
  • Ellen Russak
    There were areas where it does not seem common ground can be reached - an example is the free speech argument. Those locked into the idea that the Supreme Court's decision is (a) infallible and (b) can not allow any contribution restrictions, will not be happy with CFR that includes that option. Those that feel that restrictions are necessary to control the undue influence money is having in politics will not be happy with people who think the answer is admonishing politicians, lobbyists, and voters to "just do what's right." Nor will they be satified by those throwing their hands in the air and saying reform is impossible. Those who feel the present form of government should be changed to one that is more socialistic or totally free from government control have moved beyond the CFR scope of this discussion. On the other hand, most respondents seemed to agree that money does influence legislation and that some restrictions on contributions, particularly soft money, corporations, lobbyists, and PACS are necessary. Many feel carefully worded restrictions would not (or should not) infringe on first amendment rights. There is much agreement that legislators should be allowed to focus on doing their job and not running the money race. McCain/Feingold has a fair amount of support from many respondents.
  • Ellen Taylor
    The "common ground" would have been most people felt campaign finance reform was needed. How that reform would be fashioned was up in the air.
  • Nancy Thomas
    I think the idea of free speech as needing to be protected, even though reforms sound like a good idea, was expressed my many. I think we all want a level playing field that is fair, but don't know the best way to achieve that. The issue is very complex without a clear solution.
  • Frances Venn
    Realization that there must be changes in the way campaigns are financed AND money is used for access to elected officials if our form of government is to survive.

2. What have you learned from your fellow participants, and how has it changed or informed the way that you think about this choice?

  • Don A.
    I have learned that most of the correspondents do not have any appreciation of the fundamental freedoms which are removed if people can not support a candidate to any extent they desire.
  • Byron Bagnell
    I have acquired a better understanding of the nature of the problem and how it affects various groups especially rhe challanger to a candidate for office.
  • Harry Brown
    There is certainly two sides to the proverbial coin. It may take some determined effort to make yourself "see" the other side of the coin--but it would certainly prove enlighting in most every case. I feel strongly that some way must be devised to encourage voters to VOTE !! What kind of Democracy do whe have where only 15-20 of the citizens even bother to vote--much less study the issues !!! THis must come FIRST !!!!!
  • Rod Cameron
    It's not so much that I've learned this, but I have been surprised at how people across the board seem to equate money, all money, in campaigns with influence. The assumption seems to be that there are not people out there contributing out of civic duty-- only doing so out of some ulterior motive. I disagree with that-- but recognize now that to address this issue, we must also address that perception.
  • G Gocek
    Some of the people seem to beleive you can legislate democracy, a prospect no more likely than doing so for morality. I did not change my opinion on Choice 1, thinking that campaign finance reform is unlikely to change the fundamental drivers of the political process. But the forum participants do seem to be motivated by sincere beliefs that public pariticipation is valuable and that there has to be "a better way."
  • Denise Hood
    I came into this discussion thinking a bit more simplistically about Campaign Finance Reform. From this interaction, and exposure to others' points of view, it has made me take a more in-depth look at: 1. Is contributing money to political campaigns a personal freedom, protected under Free Speech, and therefore NOT something we could regulate or restrict? I was forced to wrestle with the issue, but in the end, I still believe that money does NOT equal Free Speech. 2.I have had to take a closer look at the idea of WHO pays for "Free Air Time" for candidates. I always thought it was a great idea, but never really realized that SOMEONE has to pay for it. 3. Prior to this Forum, I hadn't heard much about the states that have already enacted "Clean Money/Clean Elections" laws, and their efforts to partially publically fund elections. I think this is a wonderful idea, and hope that in time, more/all 50 states would adopt this approach. Prior to this discussion, I favored Campaign Finance Reform. I believed that both soft AND hard money needs to be reduced/ eliminated. I saw the future of campaign financing to be a combination of public funding and free airtime for candidates. After being involved in this discussion, I feel even MORE strongly about the need for campaign finance reform. I have heard and am respectful of differing points of view, and the need to hear both sides in this debate. I now feel that restricting/eliminating SOFT money is most critical, to get special interests out of Washington, and give the voters back their voices. But I want to know that this WILL be done fairly, and not favor one party's continued abuse, while eliminating funding for the OTHER party's candidates. I see moves to add ammendments to McCain-Feingold to add "paycheck protections" for union members to be targeting one party, at the expense of the other. I think it's CRITICAL that this be done fairly and equitably,a nd that each party EQUALLY "feel the pain," or else it ISN'T BEING DONE RIGHT! I have become much more aware of the complexity of the issue.
  • Davis Jim
    Many creative partial answers have little venue for expression.
  • Davis Jim
    Many creative partial answers have little venue for expression.
  • Joan Johnson
    Some participants felt strongly that money equates to free speech. I hadn't thought about money in that way - my initial position was that money tends to corrupt or at least gives off the appearance of undue influence. I haven't changed this alternate view about money and free speech because money isn't readily available for all people in the U. S. What this argument has done for me is to belive "time" may be the leveler in this choice. Let the candidates take in as much as they'd like from any source they'd like, but the campaign time would to be limited prior to both the primary and the election to something like 6 weeks. The candidates and special interest groups could speak as much as they'd like during that period, then we'd move on. I suppose free speech issues would come about in this view as well. If all hangs on the first amendment, then perhaps we should just throw up our hands and let the system continue to run amok.
  • Ying-Ying Kao
    I learned some interesting facts about this situation, and the immense amount of money some candidates spent was shocking. I enjoyed hearing the views of the other participants regarding the rights of the citizens. I don't think my opinion has changed that much, but I have learned a lot about other people's views on this issue.
  • Al Kolwicz
    Our institutions have failed to teach what America is all about. Unless this is remedied, we will lose our republic.
  • Peter Luebke
    I am a bit less vitriolic against campaign finances. Earlier, I thought a complete overhaul was needed, with extreme limits imposed. However, I see that this is unfeasible and wouldn't work. Right now I feel that more tweaking rather than a new system is needed.
  • Laurie Maak
    I've learned that other citizens care deeply about this issue and they are very dissatisfied with the present system. I am more convinced than ever that this is a KEY issue that touches just about everything else. I have more confidence the nation creating positive solutions to the problem in the future.
  • Cindy O'Connor
    I think I am willing to consider raising contribution limits. We can't cut off all sources, or make it so hard to raise enough that we reduce candidates to beggers. I am sorry we didn't spend more time on public financing. While it has its problems, it may be the only way to finance campaigns in ways that are acceptable. There are some unexplored facets, here, such as advertising, the appropriate role of parties, how much self financing we want to allow, revisiting the supreme court's contention that money is speech rather than property.
  • Jay Oliver
    Many seem to be only vaguely, if at all, aware of the history and current legal standing of previous campaign funding reforms.
  • Jean Prokopow
    A very clear statement of the need of economic interests to make investments, i.e. donations, to insure Congress protects their profits confirmed my beliefs. Without this power, the writer feared that labor, environmental groups, child advocacy groups might reign supreme. "Who can name a government program that is run efficiently?" made clear a bias against government. I can think of many programs I would not eliminate, even with their imperfections.
  • Susan Rice
    It seems that a large number of participants believe that donors of large contributions will sway decisions by legislators. There seems to be a perception the the influence of money is new. It has been that way since time began. It has reinforced in my mind, the great gap of thinking between the haves and the havenots. I think those who fear the rich are more successful when they combine their resources and join the game. That is why I think PACS of the "good" causes allow the small donor to have access. Bundling can be a good. I think the endgame is to increase the influence of ideas, opinions and views on elected officials. Limiting individuals' ability to do this, will not, ipso factor, allow others to have more influence. It will not successfully spread the ability of others to have access to elected officials. SO, how has the learning changed the way I think? It depresses me that we are so far apart.
  • Ellen Russak
    It has solidified my committment to supporting McCain/Feingold (without weakening amendments). It has also been an education on CFR systems in other states, such as Minnesota, that will be interesting to watch. I very much enjoyed reading some of the well thought out and stated rationales. I was discouraged by some of the retoric.
  • Ellen Taylor
    If anything, I am more fervent about the need for strong CFR.
  • Nancy Thomas
    I think we have remarkedly similar views. Some were more pessimistic about voters' commitment to finding out the facts about candidates and issues than others. Somehow, the process needs to bring back confidence in the electoral process so that more Americans will actually vote.
  • Frances Venn
    How deeply this issue affects our political attitudes, as well as how deeply our cultural empahsis on MONEY affect our political attitudes


Welcome | About this Event | Join the Dialogue | Briefing Book | Search