public funding from tax for political parties?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

public funding from tax for political parties?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> public funding from tax for political parties?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

public funding from tax for political parties? - 12/13/2007 6:45:02 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

I grow weary of our system in the UK, and from what I read here the same applies all over the world; our political parties are funded by big business and reflect all too often the interests of their paymasters, rather than the interests of the people or the nation.

But what if we banned private donations, whether from corporations or individuals or associations like unions, and instead funded parties from taxation?

In theory, it sounds like a better alternative, denying certain interests a higher level of influence derived from their donations. But I see some problems.

What is a party? ie, could a bunch of us get together and form a party purely to gain income for ourselves as paid officers of the party?

If we're to apply it across the board, then every party has to have funding - including some which are very minority interest (neo nazis, for instance); how do we decide who gets how much?

What's the opinion on this?

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: public funding from tax for political parties? - 12/13/2007 7:02:18 AM

sappatoti

Posts: 14844
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: the edge of darkness...
Status: offline

I believe an attempt at this has been tried here in the United States for quite a number of years, though I cannot be certain it is the same idea of that which you speak.

On our individual IRS 1040 forms, there is a box that each taxpayer may select, or not, that would provide a certain dollar amount to be set aside for use in public political campaigns. The form expressly states that this dollar amount does not increase our taxes, so my side question would be, where does this money that we may, or may not, contribute originate?

Anyway, there is a pool of public funds set aside for campaign purposes. I do not know enough about how this whole pot of money is disbursed, or what the rules for its use are to make an educated statement, but I believe the intentions of this pool of money was to try and eliminate at least some of the corporate and lobbyist money now being used to fund campaigns.

However, this public pool is no where near large enough to cover all campaign costs, as the media usually charges market or premium market rates to these campaigns, which easily blows away, rather quickly, any amount that may be in the pool.

So, I do believe, LadyEllen, that what you suggest has been tried, and is still attempted here in the US. In my eyes, it looks like not enough is being done, and until the links between "hard" and "soft" money from corporate and/or lobbyist sources is broken, the experiment is not succeeding.

_____________________________

Never mind the man on the edge of the darkness... he means no harm...

"Community, Identity, Stability." ~ A Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, 1932

If you don't like my attitude, QUIT TALKING TO ME!

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: public funding from tax for political parties? - 12/13/2007 7:05:40 AM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

How about just banning the ACTIONS of Political Parties, as Racketeering.

I have no problems with people meeting and discussing shit. But when an Artificial Legal Entity forgets its station, and presumes to act as if it were a Natural Person, that Uppity Entity needs to be reminded of their place, preferably with Judicial Dissolution, as a warning to any other ALE which gets ideas of thinking it's as good as a Real Person.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to sappatoti)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: public funding from tax for political parties? - 12/13/2007 7:16:13 AM

Stephann

Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline

The reality, sadly, is that the current system in place is peopled with folks who were successful campaigners. They're not likely to slaughter their golden geese and rely strictly on the merits of their skills and platforms anytime soon. To boot, at least in the US, the two party system may have the Red and Blue locked head to head against each other, but at least they know their enemy well. Under a completely publicly funded system, any upstart third (or fourth or fifth or sixth or twentieth) party could simply barge in and wipe them out.

People hate having to share power; best to share it with only one party, unofficially, 50/50, than to both be tossed to the curb like a couple of winos.

Stephan

_____________________________

Nosce Te Ipsum

"The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer

Men: Find a Woman here

(in reply to farglebargle)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: public funding from tax for political parties? - 12/13/2007 7:20:02 AM

TahoeSadist

Posts: 176
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline

Personally, I think that's an appalling thought. Taking away a person's right to support the candidate or party he feels will represent him the best can't be a good thing. Then the idea of giving the power to totally conrtrol the political process to the politicians who are already in office? To use your terminology, then the current in-office politicians must answer to their paymasters, which are themselves. If one has an abusive government one doesn't solve it by then ceding more and more power to that government, enabling it to do more injury to the citizen. The quote which comes to mind for me is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine: "that government is best which governs least"

TS

_____________________________

As long as one of us enjoys it, it's not a total waste

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: public funding from tax for political parties? - 12/13/2007 2:49:38 PM

Muttling

Posts: 1612
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

I think it's a horrible idea. The funding you are able to raise from your constituents is yet another statement of how much popular support you have. In the U.S. we strictly limit the amount of money that can be donated to prevent big business or big wealth from "buying the office." They still have a lot of pull because of their money, but to get big money you have to pull together large fund raisers and get donations from a LOT of entities. Thus, a small handful are incapable of buying the office.

On the subject of the presidential political campain contribution option on the tax returns, it is NOT a tax as it is purely voluntary. A fixed amount is give to the Republican and Democratic nominees. Any candidate holding 5% or more in major opinion poles may also qualify for some of the funds but it is complex item and the amount is pro-rated based on how much popular support they have.

(in reply to TahoeSadist)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: public funding from tax for political parties? - 12/14/2007 4:40:58 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TahoeSadist

Personally, I think that's an appalling thought. Taking away a person's right to support the candidate or party he feels will represent him the best can't be a good thing. Then the idea of giving the power to totally conrtrol the political process to the politicians who are already in office? To use your terminology, then the current in-office politicians must answer to their paymasters, which are themselves. If one has an abusive government one doesn't solve it by then ceding more and more power to that government, enabling it to do more injury to the citizen. The quote which comes to mind for me is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine: "that government is best which governs least"

TS

Hi TS

I'm not sure we're taking away anyone's right to support their candidate of choice with this - after all, one can still vote for that candidate, which should be all the support they need to win the office.

And the politicians would not be their own paymasters - the entire electorate would be their paymasters. This should at least help in providing more representative democracy rather than the purchasing of influence for certain interests which can afford them.

One of the main reasons I believe that we have abusive governments, is that some groups possess the ability to override the interests of the rest purely by way of buying influence through funding.

If all give a little to fund the democratic process, then parties and candidates can rise or fall on the merits of their policies alone, as they appeal to the whole.
E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to TahoeSadist)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: public funding from tax for political parties? - 12/14/2007 4:53:15 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling

I think it's a horrible idea. The funding you are able to raise from your constituents is yet another statement of how much popular support you have. In the U.S. we strictly limit the amount of money that can be donated to prevent big business or big wealth from "buying the office." They still have a lot of pull because of their money, but to get big money you have to pull together large fund raisers and get donations from a LOT of entities. Thus, a small handful are incapable of buying the office.

The problem though being, as expressed here many times in many threads, is that corporate funding does buy significant interest - whether that interest be satisfied with specific legislation relating to the relevant industry, or more wide reaching decisions taken which benefit multiple donor industries. It is simply not right in my view that policy is determined by who paid what, rather than the interests of the electorate, who through the current funding system are offered a choice of two, and get to choose the least worst rather than what they would like.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Muttling)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: public funding from tax for political parties? - 12/14/2007 7:33:52 AM

TahoeSadist

Posts: 176
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Hi TS

I'm not sure we're taking away anyone's right to support their candidate of choice with this - after all, one can still vote for that candidate, which should be all the support they need to win the office.

And the politicians would not be their own paymasters - the entire electorate would be their paymasters. This should at least help in providing more representative democracy rather than the purchasing of influence for certain interests which can afford them.

One of the main reasons I believe that we have abusive governments, is that some groups possess the ability to override the interests of the rest purely by way of buying influence through funding.

If all give a little to fund the democratic process, then parties and candidates can rise or fall on the merits of their policies alone, as they appeal to the whole.
E

Hi E,
    I used the word "support" specifically and deliberately instead of "vote". The two are not the same thing, and your proposal stated taking away the right of a person to support a political party or candidate by private donation and that I found appalling. To say that only voters are needed to run a campaign ignores the realities that advertising or even getting ones position into the public view. It would for a certainty kill off as we call them over here "grass roots" efforts to make change and also the chances of any aspiring officeholder who perhaps doesn't toe his party's official line to get elected.

    As to the concept of the fox being in charge of the henhouse aka "public only" funding of the parties: to say the politicians would not be their own paymaster defies logic. Here's how: to do that the government would have to confiscate money from the citizenry and put it into this Political Party Election Fund. Now, who is currently in charge of the government? Yes, your politicians. So, your current politicians have the PPEF to use as needed to self perpetuate, with no possible chance of outside influence because they have outlawed this already. There is no check on this power then. Oh, and to answer your question about how to decide who gets what: the in control politicians would decide that in setting up the PPEF and anyone who didn't have a finger in it would be left out in the cold.

    To say that this power resides in the voting populace ignores the fact that if all political funding comes from the PPEF, controlled by the politicians in place (or their appointed henchmen), then only aspiring officeholders who will follow the party line completely will be funded in campaigns. Someone who wishes to run on a platform of reforming his party or even changing the direction of it would have the proverbial snowball's chance in hell as he goes door to door across the country asking for votes since no donations could be given to help him advertise.

    Abusive governments are that way because they have no fear of the population. The stronger your central government is, the less free the citizens are. In fact, at that point one can stop referring to "citizen" and simply use "subject" because that is what transpisres. How to change that? Well, a few years back we "colonials" used one method you may recall. The more palatable alternative is to elect people who believe that the purpose of government is to serve the people instead of the reverse. Which is a whole nother interesting discussion.

TS

_____________________________

As long as one of us enjoys it, it's not a total waste

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: public funding from tax for political parties? - 12/14/2007 8:37:08 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

I worked at HR Block in the 90s. Even then the look on folks faces when I asked if $1 [it is now $3] should go to the election campaiagne. The look is one of utter discust. After a while I tended to simply check no UNLESS they verbalized it as a "yes". This had no bearing on the amount owed.

A whil eback I looked at local busnesses and what they conributed to. It was so tempting to confront them- but my point of contact would be a lowly clerk just wanting to put food on the table.

(in reply to TahoeSadist)

Profile

Post #: 10

RE: public funding from tax for political parties? - 12/18/2007 1:54:29 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

we can thank the supreme court for that 1886

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to farglebargle)

Profile

Post #: 11