How Does the 'Fair Elections Now Act' Work?

[stamax]

Sen. Durbin, thank you for always remaining a public servant.  When people start bashing all politicians and promoting term limits, I always refer to you as why their argument isn't valid.  You are a treasure, unlike our other Senator who has proven to be a pawn.

[jerryryberg]

Durbin is so good, and here's another reason.  There are many moves afoot to undo C.U. and general corruption in Congress, and I'm helping.

[pavandeepsethi]

I would adopt a system similar to the UK and ban advertising on television.  No impingement on free speech / candidates can print, make web pages, etc...but just not campaign on the TV.  This would remove the need to have such heavy war chests at least partially and perhaps focus on forcing candidates to clearly state their opinions.

[jesus]

This just sounds so reasonable. Thank you, Senator Durbin!

[camjoshmarsh]

It sure beats what is in place now, which secures big money interests to a candidate!

[mine]

I have a better idea, how about limiting EVERY candidate for every office a set amount for campaigning. No exclusions, no exceptions. Have EVERY candidate run on their own merits and by telling the people how they will represent them.

[kimjameson]

Hi Dick, thanks for sharing your view on campaign donations. The proposal seems a tad nebulous and bureaucratic at first glance, so in the interest of brevity, here's mine.

1) Public donations made directly to a candidate or agent thereof shall be illegal.
2) A fund will be established to receive all donations and administer disbursements from the fund during each election cycle.
3) State candidates will receive disbursements from a third of the fund, based upon relative State population. Federal candidates will receive a third of the fund, apportioned equally to the number of candidates. The remaining third of the fund will be used to organize local debates among candidates.

In my opinion, a level financial playing field is essential and extemporaneous public debates have a tendency to either demonstrate the worth of the individual candidate to the voters, or reveal a Bozo. It's vital for our Nation that we pick fewer Bozos with crazy-money corporate "contributions" and the payback that entails. Otherwise, we have Government according to say, the Koch Brothers. "Money talks, " may be a truism, especially when one pauses to consider the power of media to bend opinion, but as we know, the loudest advertiser isn't always the best.

Thanks again for giving me a forum to rant a little. Keep up the good work.

[maryannquinlan]

The Fair Elections Now Act sounds positive and could reduce the barriers to entry for grassroots candidates. But it's not just financing that makes elections unfair - go further! #1-Primaries and caucuses must become much more open than they are now in 2016. I know that rules for these are set by the parties, but shouldn't the USA require a more openly democratic process for securing these coveted party-sanctioned spots on a ballot? #2- Elimination of super-delegates from party nominating processes is a MUST. People do not participate if they feel their votes do not count. Super-delegates negate the votes of primary voters, sending the absolute WRONG signal in today's crowd-sourced world. Super-delegates have more negatives than positives today. When voters believe that all votes count equally, then trust, enthusiasm, and participation in the democratic process (little "d") will increase.