An IOM editorial in the DN today makes the case that Pennsylvania really, really needs to rethink its campaign finance laws:
Currently, there are no limits for individuals or political action committees. If you want to drop $1 million into the coffers of someone campaigning for state office, there's nothing stopping you. As a result, candidates are forced to raise large amounts of cash to remain competitive.
[snip]
No one gives that kind of money to politicians without expecting something in return. The biggest donations come from individuals and PACs connected to industries that are subject to state regulation or which bid on state contracts. That includes lawyers, construction firms, unions and health-care companies, among others.
The editorial goes on to share some ideas for how this situation could be fixed. It also acknowledges that, yes, reform seems unlikely. But consider this:
The truth is that many lawmakers are tired of constantly being forced to raise more and more money. And donors are sick of being constantly asked. Both sides might be willing to unilaterally disarm.
Here are some groups working for reform on this issue:
Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.
Might be a better way to deal with the chronic malignancy of permanent incumbency. ### Instead of reforming campaign finance (which is to say criminally and unconstitutionally foreclosing spending on political speech, which is clear violation of the Bill of Rights), let's consider a random decimation of all sitting politicians. ### Just before each election, each incumbent "Malevolent Jobholder" is given a number, and the same sort of computer program as was used to generate that "hockey stick" global warming fraud graph churns and grinds and spits out a list of those identification numbers. Each politician whose number comes up gets removed from the ballot, leaving his place on the ticket empty, with no "last-minute-Lautenberg" substitutions. ### The election then goes forward as a contest between the opposing party's Empty Suit and whatever "third-party" candidates are on the ballot. ### Won't that be fun? It effectively guarantees at least SOME minimal turnover in the big manure pile we call "government" in this country, and increases the number of people seeking employment as lobbyists and political consultants in one of the few sectors of the economy that show any growth at all during these years of Obama-crippled mock "recovery." Tucci78
DO THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS CLEARLY REQUIRE THE DONORS TO PUBLISH THE AMOUNTS AND RECEPIENTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS? WE SHOULD ALL KNOW WHO GOT WHAT FROM WHO. THE INQ COULD PUBLISH THIS AS A SCORESHEET ALA NFL STANDINGS. TURN ON THE SPOTLIGHT! DONALD CHAPDELAINE
So, essentially, these politicians run for office to make money. They could care less about the residents of the state. They sell their vote to curry favor with this industry or that. Then, they retire and go to work for these same industries where they get paid off for the work they did while in office. MikeP
- Philly Clout
- Metropolis
- Attytood
- Heard in the Hall
- Commonwealth Confidential
- Philebrity
- Phawker
- Young Philly Politics
- OurPhiladelphia
- Capitol Ideas
- Grassroots PA
- PA Policy Blog
- Media Mobilizing Project
- The Notebook
- Dave Davies Off Mic
- Committee of Seventy
- The Independent
- Naked City
- Plan Philly
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008

















