The Instigator
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Lexicaholic
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

Campaign Finance Reform

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,423 times Debate No: 8434
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (8)

 

Tatarize

Pro

A campaign lives and dies by money and it's getting worse and worse every election cycle. When money is more important than votes, we find that anybody we need to elect is going to be far more indebted to the money than the people. The current system is a legal nightmare, a joke, and an albatross around the necks of everybody in politics.

I don't know what the solutions to the problems are, but I do know that the problems are not going to be solved by doing nothing. We need to reform the system because the current system is categorically broken.

1) Politicians are indebted to the money.
2) The superwealthy rather than the most qualified can most easily seek office.
3) To comply with the current system you need an army of lawyers.
4) The 3rd party candidates cannot afford an army of lawyers and thus are forbade.
5) The rules are seemingly random and makeshift as to what is an isn't acceptable.
6) Campaign rules at present violate freedom of speech dictating what is and isn't acceptable.
7) Regardless if somebody opts into campaign finance they are buried by the 527s and are hamstrung by the rules and unable to fight back.
8) The rules limit the amount of funds one can raise and so if one candidate opts in and another opts out, the candidate as part of the system is doomed to be outspent.

We need to find a way to remove money from the equation without limiting free speech or making it a requirement to hire an army of lawyers, shutting out third-party voices and insulating incumbents from the will of the people. The money in politics must be removed, not half-socialized, if you want and agree to jump through certain hoops, only to be buried by a quasi-independent group's 24/7 attack ads with bottomless funds and vile lies.

We need something better than the best politician money can buy. There are a good number of proposals to draw from, from clean money to state funded elections as to how we remove money from having a greater input to our democracy than the people. -- We need Campaign Finance Reform.
Lexicaholic

Con

Reform: ": to put or change into an improved form or condition b: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses2: to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action3: to induce or cause to abandon evil ways 4 a: to subject (hydrocarbons) to cracking b: to produce (as gasoline or gas) by cracking intransitive verb: to become changed for the better"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

We do not need campaign finance reform. As my opponent has already stated "a campaign lived and dies by money." Even if we reform the system, this would likely still be the case, as running promotion of any form in society requires money, and people have different amounts of it. What we need is campaign elimination. We need to amend the Constitution and each State constitution so that all candidates for government office are locked in an underground bunker for the duration of their candidacy. No kissing babies, no advertising campaigns, no fancy slogans and absolutely no speaking to the public.

Candidates will be granted access to federal or state (as appropriate) government computers that allow them to state their views, plans and methodologies on a nationally or state funded public access blog. No handlers will be allowed in this bunker to help candidates express themselves - they'll have to do it on their own. A hard copy will be printed out every day so that there is always a physical record of what the candidates say. Newspapers and media outlets may freely take information from this blog and use it to disseminate the candidate's views or explain their positions. Candidacy advertising of any form on any level at any time will be banned. Instead, nationally or state funded adverts will play, briefly outlining the political beliefs and policies of each candidate and urging voters to turn out on the polls on election day.

Candidates may leave at any time, but if they do, they're out. Candidates may not raise funds to support their candidacy. If too many candidates are running for office, determined under state or federal Constitutional guidelines (as amended), then the public will be allowed a pre-screen vote to remove the least popular candidates. This vote will be held thirty days after all candidates have registered and after an advertisement has been played for one week preparing the public for it and outlining candidates' proposals.

In addition to all of this, a background check will be conducted exposing the candidate's life and political decisions to intense scrutiny. All discoveries about the candidate not related to health (at least on the state level) will be posted on the blog underneath the candidate's statements. This also may be taken and disseminated by the press and the media. The discovery of any contributions to the candidate that could even be remotely perceived as a payment in support of candidacy will result in the candidate's immediate ejection.

This method is certain to make sure that only the brightest and best are elected, allows the public access to understanding of the candidate's positions and eliminates finance altogether. For this reason, I urge you to vote against campaigns and the finances that continue them! Forget reform, let's throw the bums in (a bunker)!

Addendum: Access to the blog will be freely available in any public libraries that have computers, so it won't prove a hindrance to the poor, only the willfully ignorant.
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
Yeah, I've thought about it and screw integrity ... I'm not running for office. XD
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Good lexi, I promptly went down the line and voted for me.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
I'm going to abstain from voting.
Posted by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
Hey Tatarize, I cannot accept, for I agree. You make some really good points and I am excited to see how this one turns out.

"I don't know what the solutions to the problems are"

I think the solution is to ebb away from the "politician" as a career. These people are good at networking, lying, and appealing to people. But when it comes to actual policy, I'd take a professor over a politician any day of the week. A lot of these people are former attorneys, but would we not be better off with the Legislature (especially the senate) being run by Intellectuals? The House will always be hostile, but the Founders had the Senate elected by State Legislatures for a reason: so it would be manned by old, wise thinkers. Not only would this aid policy, but since these new thinkers would already be established in society, serving a term or two wouldn't be a career, but rather a way of giving back. It would also not allow for policy based on long term political security (think Specter). All I know, is Noam Chomsky is better suited to be the Senate majority leader than Harry Reid.

Just my two cents
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
TatarizeLexicaholicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52