Writer's Block: Hey, big spender

[dorchadas]

Still working on my NaNo. But in the meantime, there's this.

[Error: unknown template qotd]
Ideally, all contributions would go to the same source and be equally divided between all candidates running who successfully met some threshold (signatures, established party, whatever).

My idea about the influence of money in political campaigns is basically, "If money is speech, then speech isn't free."

Comments

[primitivepeople.livejournal.com]

I think this is a nice idea in theory, but it would never work. People wouldn't donate anything because it would go to people they disagree with too much. I certainly wouldn't want my money to go to groups like the British National Party, and I wouldn't want it going anywhere near the Conservatives either.

But yes - the principle of equalising the funding available for each party would prevent those with the most money getting the most influence, and would open up the playing field to be rather more fair. I'm just not sure how you'd do it.

[dorchadas]

Yeah, that's the disadvantage. It requires people to act rationally and trust that their fellow countrymen will be able to pick the lies out of each candidate or parties' promises.

The problem is that it's way easier to lie than explain why something is a lie. By the time you're done, your opponent has already lied twice more and then you're behind.

We already have something a bit like that set up in America--at tax time every year, there's a checkbox if you want to donate $3 to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. I'm not actually sure how much money the government collects through it, but it usually does donation as matching funds. I.e., if people give you %50K, you get $50K from the government, up to some pre-defined limit.

[primitivepeople.livejournal.com]

The issue is that people will almost always object on principle to directly funding their opponents. While it may not be a big deal to some people, who don't consider there to be that many differences between the three main UK parties, it becomes a big deal when you get to blatantly racist groups like the BNP, that practically no-one will touch with a barge-pole. There was an outcry when they won two seats in the European Parliament, because tax money is paying the wages of fascists.

Traditionally, Labour has been funded by trade unions and the Conservatives have been funded by big business, and that's rather unbalanced because big business usually has more money than the unions, and the Conservatives passed a lot of anti-union legislation in the 80s that reduced the money they could spend on political action, so at the moment it's all rather unbalanced. The right-wing bias in the media gives the Conservatives a huge amount of free publicity as well, and it's instrumental in them being able to get away with their slash-and-burn approach to public services.

So yeah...I'd love to see more equal funding, but how the hell do you get people to buy into it, when it may result in them not getting the election result they want?

[dorchadas]

You'd have to impose it from the top-down, like a lot of reforms. There's no way it'd ever get enough support otherwise.

I'm no stranger to people blatantly voting in their worst interests--witness all the old people here voting for the party that keeps talking about repealing the first real good healthcare reform we've had in two generations.

Like I said, there'd be limits on who exactly could run. But if enough people are voting for fascists, crypto- or otherwise, that's more a social or education problem and not really one the voting system can solve.

[primitivepeople.livejournal.com]

I'm no stranger to people blatantly voting in their worst interests--witness all the old people here voting for the party that keeps talking about repealing the first real good healthcare reform we've had in two generations.

That's true - it's incredibly bizarre. Here, we've somehow allowed the Conservatives into office, despite the fact that it's probably going to result in more than a million people losing their jobs. People won't be so happy when it affects them.

But if enough people are voting for fascists, crypto- or otherwise, that's more a social or education problem and not really one the voting system can solve.

That's very true, but there's a very effective "no platform" policy here that's kept the BNP out of the public eye. When the publicly-funded BBC featured BNP leader Nick Griffin on a political talk show, people went crazy. I'm very encouraged by that and I think we're still a long way off electing our first fascist MP, unlike a lot of other European nations - but it's probably down to their inability to get their message out.

[dorchadas]

That's very true, but there's a very effective "no platform" policy here that's kept the BNP out of the public eye.

Well, there's nothing wrong with extending that into such a system. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with "Everyone gets equal funding--except you, you fascist bastards."

In America, people talk a lot about slippery slopes in free speech, like banning anything leads to some horrible domino effect and pretty soon unbellyfeel speak is doubleplus ungood, but plenty of nations implement reasonable restrictions on speech like "no advocation of fascism" or Germany's rules about the Nazis without suffering serious social problems.

[primitivepeople.livejournal.com]

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with "Everyone gets equal funding--except you, you fascist bastards."

Hahaha - nicely put! Neither would I!

In America, people talk a lot about slippery slopes in free speech, like banning anything leads to some horrible domino effect and pretty soon unbellyfeel speak is doubleplus ungood, but plenty of nations implement reasonable restrictions on speech like "no advocation of fascism" or Germany's rules about the Nazis without suffering serious social problems.

Absolutely. While I think restrictions should be kept to a minimum, I think it's a sign of a civilised society that there are certain things you just shouldn't say, because society at large considers them too offensive.

Love the Nineteen Eighty-Four references. I love Orwell and I think this is one of the best books ever written - every single page of it is prophetic genius.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, all of the Campaign Fund comes from the government. Checking the box doesn't cost you anything.

[ping816.livejournal.com]

They should severely limit funding to the point where attack ads are impossible and they are limited to actual information

[dorchadas]

But people just use their money for attack ads and ignore information now. After all, if you don't make any statements you can't be called on them later. Cutting money wouldn't reduce the proportion of attack ads, though it would reduce them in the absolute sense.