]> http://www.publicampaign.org/blog-tags/los-angeles Comments for "los angeles" en http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/07/06/clean-election-fever#comment-19341 Simple, yes: but comprehensive, no. Campaign spending limits is the only campaign finance reform that can really do enough. Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:40:16 -0500 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/07/06/clean-election-fever#comment-18303 Since the public financing movement and the campaign spending limits movement still have so much left to accomplish, I'm putting my efforts into campaign spending limits, because its easier for people to understand than public financing is, and -- unlike public financing -- campaign spending limits is fair to all of the campaigns in an election race. Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:00:34 -0500 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/07/06/clean-election-fever#comment-7483 Political ads should be moved from commercial media, to publicly-funded media with 'equal access' charters, such as NPR, C-Span, and public TV. The presentations should be restricted to debates, open forums, and formal statements of policy. A few new TV channels could certainly be dedicated to this very purpose. The benefits are obvious. There should be no serious impediment to creating and funding this kind of programming. It could be supported by a government mandate to the broadcast industry. Or, the plan could be supported by public campaign funds. However, the other part of the equation, banning political ads from commercial media is problematic. Legally, public campaign funding has to be voluntary. Freedom of speech laws guarantee the right of a well-heeled non-participating candidate to deluge the commercial media with sound bites and personal attacks. Maybe someday Americans will so highly value political debate that it is given its own special forum, and is indeed banned from commercialization. Then, banning political ads from commercial media would no longer be considered an abrogation of free speech. Suppose that "participating" candidates (those who don't use non-public campaign funds) agree to use only the public media forums. How do they stifle or counter competition from commercial ad campaigns run by non-participants? Or better yet how do we convince ALL candidates to be participants and forego the commercials? One possibility: If the new media political forums are funded by public campaign money, and the benefits of this funding are only made available to participating candidates, then non-participants would have only their commercial ads going for them. The persuasive power of those commercials would probably be much less than that of the public forums, and would certainly be more expensive. Another possibility: If it turns out that all candidates must be given access to the public media forums, then public campaign funds could be used to support a limited number of commercial ads on behalf of participating candidates. These ads would direct voters to the public media forums, and simply advise that the non-participating candidate is just that. The implied stigma should have the desired effect. Sat, 18 Nov 2006 14:29:49 -0500 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/07/06/clean-election-fever#comment-5813 Here is a simple idea to clean up our campaigns. Ban political ads from public airwaves. Instead of spending millions of dollars on 30 second attack ads, hold public forums broadcast on local cable access channels and public tv. If candidates want to get their message out, then let them go door to door and make their case to the public in a meaningful way where they can explain their positions instead of trying to tell us what they think their opponent is saying. Millions are raised because the pols feel its necessary to place ads on tv. Take away the place where they waste the money and we will all be better served. Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:08:59 -0500