Re: Re: new campaign reform idea

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris B. wrote:
> It would still allow parties promoting the direct interests of capital
> much more resources than parties representing the interests of working people.

of course, that's the way it is now. It seems to me that the proposal might
set up a "free rider problem" in which ExxonMobil says "why should I give
if other oil corporations are giving?"

A big problem would be with in-kind donations, but that problem exists with
the current system.

maybe individual donations of _time_ (volunteering to work in campaigns)
would be excluded from the reform. That might actually help labor (or
what's left of it). If so, that would probably prevent the reform from ever
happening.

> This proposal is truly reformist. The only merit is that it focuses
> attention on the need for reform.

I think that some reforms can be good (though I don't know if this one
really is). Currently, disgust with the candidates-for-sale system is so
high that it might actually happen. (This disgust isn't widespread as much
as deep: the donors are disgusted with the large amounts of money being
spent, with money given to candidate X cancelling out that given to Y.)

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine