Talk:Campaign finance reform in the United States: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:49, 23 January 2010

Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am adding a paragraph or two about the two Yale Law School professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres proposal to make campaign contributions anonymous through the FEC as reported in Salon and detailed in their book "Voting with Dollars". DetonatedManiac 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)DetonatedManiac[reply]

Added the 3 paragraphs at the bottom, This is my first Wikipedia addition, please let me know if I made any errors. Also I was not sure what I should add to references. What I wrote was based primarily on the Salon article How to fix campaign financing forever for $50[1] which I referenced in my 2nd paragraph in regards to the 2004 voting figures. I didn't want to mess with the references for the whole entry as it seemed like a bit of code and I am not yet sure of Wikipedia conventions. Thanks DetonatedManiac 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)DetonatedManiac[reply]

I made some more changes to the 3 paragraphs I added earlier. In trying to clarify I ended up restructuring quite a bit and added a few more of Ackerman and Ayers arguments. I might suggest that someone add some rebuttal to their claims and their plan, as I admit I am a bit biased, but I tried to stay neutral. Some things to look into: the radical nature of their proposal, the cost (if 50 x 120 million is $6 billion dollars, thats quite a bit coming from taxes, plus the overhauls needed at the FEC) and the possible infringements of freedom of speech if contributions are made anonymously.DetonatedManiac 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few "citation needed" indicators in the "Other Criticisms" section. I also added a "Weasel words" banner in the same section, due to sentences that begin with phrases like "Most opponents claim," "many opponents point out that," and "Still, others point to," which do not contain citations or indications of who these "opponents" are. Fitzador (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Term?

The article states that "Campaign finance reform is the common term for the political effort in the United States to change the involvement of money in politics, primarily in political campaigns."

Campaign finance reform has occurred and is occurring elsewhere in the world. For example in Canada it has made a huge difference in campaigning. Perhaps the title should be changed, or the article expanded to discuss the issue of campaign finance reform in general.

--70.53.50.112 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still biased...

I suppose Wikipedia tries to be unbiased but this article has failed. There are several references in the article to the campaign finance reform "scheme". Also, the article cites a report by the GAO as non-partisan. Since when has any arm of the government besides the Supreme Court (and that is disputable) ever actually been non-partisan under any administration? You can't be non-partisan, no matter what the agency claims, as long as you are working for the party in power. They are your bosses. Let's get real. Also, I looked over the GAO's report, which Wikipedia says has nothing positive to say about the campaign finance reform study. No, it doesn't. However, it doesn't have anything negative to say, either. The study, for all it's length and verbage basically says that the study's findings are inconclusive. In addition, I have questions about the non-partisan findings of a study in which Mr. Trent Lott, a friend of President Bush's and the author, an official from Homeland Security -- of all places -- are doing the work. This study appears to be just more political spin by the powers in Washington.

K.K. McAllister —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.49.167 (talk) 00:49, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

I removed "and liberal interest groups (AFL-CIO and American Civil Liberties Union) as opposing Finance reform" as AFL-CIO was a sponsor with others of the Maine Clean elections law http://www.mainecleanelections.org/ (look at very bottom) and the ACLU merely offered concerns that announcing who was a "Clean Election" candidate could be read as support for that candidate and a court ruled the concerns not justified. That is hardly "Vehement opposition" above link has article on ACLU "opposition" Dragonwlkr (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be "Campaign Finance Reform in the United States"?

This article seems so focused on the United States (it's right there in the first paragraph!) that I think altering it to conform to the policies on worldwide perspectives is just hopeless. It should probably just have "in the United States" in the title. Elliotreed (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraph

I removed this paragraph:

Others argue that money can never be separated from political influence. This has become painfully true with the influence and power exhibited in the 2004 elections by 527s such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Moveon.org. These two groups, among others, spent nearly $400 million on influencing the most recent elections, namely by heavily criticizing, respectively Sen. John Kerry and Pres. George W. Bush.

Omitting the first bit, it might be useful elsewhere, but it makes a huge logical leap in concluding that "money can never be separated from political influence" based solely on the fact that current finance reform has failed to eliminate specific instances of influence. Dcoetzee 03:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian concerns about public financing

I removed this section because it reads as an extremely one-sided rant.

There's good, actual info in there, but it could do without the moralizing and speechifying. Dfunk1967 (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the "2012 Supreme Court Ruling", subsection "Arguments Against", the quote given is taken completely out of context, and thus it makes little sense and contributes little (unless you happen a constitutional attorney).

Likewise, under the subsection "Arguments For" the final sentence is: "Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell, it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question". This sentence is also out of context, and it contributes little to a reader who is not a constitutional attorney.

I have partially rewritten the section under "2012 Supreme Court Ruling" because what was there before was worded in what sounded like a matter-of-factly biased way. I also added a second excerpt from Justice Stevens's partial dissent, which I find a lot more indicative of the positions of the opposing justices than is the second, shorter quote, which was not inserted by me. Worldrimroamer (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]