Campaign Finance Reform - Clean Elections

[Zeran]

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=23

i think the greatest threat to american democracy right now is the power of money in our politics - the fact that power in the private sphere (corporations earning millions and billions of dollars) can be made into power in the political sphere (through the funding of campaigns/politicians, lobbying, etc).

the only thing standing in the way of absolutely vital legislation and reforms in health care, energy, the environment, and other topics, is the disproportionate influence of corporate special-interest money over our government.

additionally, the recent supreme court ruling that corporations have freedom of speech, thereby giving them the ability to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns without having to expose themselves, threatens even more severely to ensure that corporations, and not the american people, are the ones who run the government.


the fair elections bill (http://fairelectionsnow.org/about-bill) would help out tremendously, but it has yet to be passed.

i'm of the opinion that publicly-funded elections, taking the money out of politics, gives the american people their democratic rights back, and would allow them to truly let their voices be heard in a way that reflects the most pressing needs of ordinary americans, and not just the top 1%.

reading the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform#Clean_Elect ions), it seems that not all of the objectives of having clean elections occurred in places that enacted such legislation, while other states had a majority vote against campaign finance reform.

is this important? are there negatives? obviously, i think this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that can occur right now in the united states, but i'd like to know what you guys think.

[Love As Arson]

I agree with public financing. Another reform that is necessary in relation to this is lifting the restrictions on third parties. Also, I think the pay of politicians should be restricted to about twenty-thousand dollars a year.

[Juan Jose]

I agree with public financing. Another reform that is necessary in relation to this is lifting the restrictions on third parties. Also, I think the pay of politicians should be restricted to about twenty-thousand dollars a year.

then no one would run for office

[deFobbed14yrs]

then no one would run for office

Those really wanting ot make a change would.

Like how teachers are teachers. They aren't doing it for the pay, they do it because they love their job.

[caveBEAR]

then no one just looking to make an easy buck at the expense of others would run for office

I fixed your response for you, and I'd be quite alright with that.

[Juan Jose]

Those really wanting ot make a change would.

Like how teachers are teachers. They aren't doing it for the pay, they do it because they love their job.

those people have to eat too. 20,000 is barely above the poverty line


I fixed your response for you, and I'd be quite alright with that.

You're retarded, do you have any idea how much work and money goes into running for office

[Scrandon]

Come on guys, I think we can afford to pay the people who manage our country slightly more than the people who manage a McDonald's.

[caveBEAR]

You're retarded, do you have any idea how much work and money goes into running for office

I'm retarded? You know that we could have political campaigns that don't cost millions, correct? We also could remove private enterprise from the influence they had. We could...try to follow me here...actually have people running for office who want to dedicate their time and resources to doing good, not just lining their pockets.

I'm not the one who put forward 20,000, but something needs to be done about the influence private enterprize has over our political scene, as well as the ammount of start-up money needed to even be considered a contender for office.

[deFobbed14yrs]

those people have to eat too. 20,000 is barely above the poverty line




You're retarded, do you have any idea how much work and money goes into running for office

It's still above the poverty line, and there are the perks to the job to make it easier, like getting reimbursed for traveling and such.
But it could be at least something reasonable, nothing more than 50,000.

And don't call Sean retarded. He's smarter than 90% of the posters on here.

[Juan Jose]

I'm retarded? You know that we could have political campaigns that don't cost millions, correct? We also could remove private enterprise from the influence they had. We could...try to follow me here...actually have people running for office who want to dedicate their time and resources to doing good, not just lining their pockets.

I'm not the one who put forward 20,000, but something needs to be done about the influence private enterprize has over our political scene, as well as the ammount of start-up money needed to even be considered a contender for office.

Of course we could have elections that don't cost millions but people want to win so they raise more money than the other guy so they can beat them, more money means you have a better chance of winning it's just common sense.
and you're forgetting that there's interest groups for everything nowadays, corporations give money to candidates that are pro-big business while unions give money to pro-labor candidates etc. it's not like only corporations have money to shell out.
Besides money doesn't have to play any significant part in politics if people would actually take a good look at the people running get registered in parties, vote every election and are more active in the public sphere, political apathy does more harm to the nation than private interests.

[Zeran]

I agree with public financing. Another reform that is necessary in relation to this is lifting the restrictions on third parties. Also, I think the pay of politicians should be restricted to about twenty-thousand dollars a year.
what kind of restrictions are on third parties? i realize that they have an uphill battle in the american political world of two-party dominance, but are there actual requirements/laws that actively make it difficult to run? i also think publicly-funded campaigns would lead to a multi-party system.
those people have to eat too. 20,000 is barely above the poverty line

You're retarded, do you have any idea how much work and money goes into running for office
i don't care as much about how much money politicians make, as most of them are well-enough off already. but this would largely go away if campaigns were publicly funded.
I'm retarded? You know that we could have political campaigns that don't cost millions, correct? We also could remove private enterprise from the influence they had. We could...try to follow me here...actually have people running for office who want to dedicate their time and resources to doing good, not just lining their pockets.

I'm not the one who put forward 20,000, but something needs to be done about the influence private enterprize has over our political scene, as well as the ammount of start-up money needed to even be considered a contender for office.

exactly.

[Zeran]

and you're forgetting that there's interest groups for everything nowadays, corporations give money to candidates that are pro-big business while unions give money to pro-labor candidates etc. it's not like only corporations have money to shell out.

right, but the problem is is that corporations generally spend an exorbitantly large amount of money on politics, significantly more than labor unions or other groups can. they wield a disproportionate amount of influence over policies that directly benefit themselves, and not the american people (generally speaking).

[Love As Arson]

Come on guys, I think we can afford to pay the people who manage our country slightly more than the people who manage a McDonald's.

They're supposed our to be employees. They shouldn't make more than we do.

[Juan Jose]

right, but the problem is is that corporations generally spend an exorbitantly large amount of money on politics, significantly more than labor unions or other groups can. they wield a disproportionate amount of influence over policies that directly benefit themselves, and not the american people (generally speaking).

read the rest of the post then get back to me

[caveBEAR]

Of course we could have elections that don't cost millions but people want to win so they raise more money than the other guy so they can beat them, more money means you have a better chance of winning it's just common sense.
and you're forgetting that there's interest groups for everything nowadays, corporations give money to candidates that are pro-big business while unions give money to pro-labor candidates etc. it's not like only corporations have money to shell out.
Besides money doesn't have to play any significant part in politics if people would actually take a good look at the people running get registered in parties, vote every election and are more active in the public sphere, political apathy does more harm to the nation than private interests.

You're saying a lot of 'people spend money because they want to win' and 'there's intrest groups'; no shit. Might as well tell us water's wet and the sky's blue. We're discussing possible reforms to that fucked system.

I know, I know, a political system where you can't buy elections? :shudder:

You know what else would be crazy? If politicians were barred from attacking the positions of their opponents, and instead had to talk about what they themselves would do. Fucking. Insane.

:rolleyes:

[Zeran]

Of course we could have elections that don't cost millions but people want to win so they raise more money than the other guy so they can beat them, more money means you have a better chance of winning it's just common sense.

Besides money doesn't have to play any significant part in politics if people would actually take a good look at the people running get registered in parties, vote every election and are more active in the public sphere, political apathy does more harm to the nation than private interests.

having more money should not decide who wins a political election, the politician's ideas should. removing money from the equation would help to increase voter turnout, i think, because politicians would be able to say more what they believe is in the best interest of their constituents and not fear their funds being taken away.

but i'm also not sure that people not caring about politics or politicians has as much of an effect as you're saying it does.

[Love As Arson]

what kind of restrictions are on third parties? i realize that they have an uphill battle in the american political world of two-party dominance, but are there actual requirements/laws that actively make it difficult to run? i also think publicly-funded campaigns would lead to a multi-party system.

i don't care as much about how much money politicians make, as most of them are well-enough off already. but this would largely go away if campaigns were publicly funded.


exactly.

http://www.ballot-access.org/winger/iba.html

[Juan Jose]

having more money should not decide who wins a political election, the politician's ideas should. removing money from the equation would help to increase voter turnout, i think, because politicians would be able to say more what they believe is in the best interest of their constituents and not fear their funds being taken away.

but i'm also not sure that people not caring about politics or politicians has as much of an effect as you're saying it does.

I never said money should decide who wins elections, but it's necessary to get your name out there by advertising, staging events, sending out literature etc. That's how people find out who's running and what their ideas are. Removing money won't do shit to make people vote more, people vote because they care enough to register and take time out of their day to go to a polling center and vote.

Of course people caring has an effect, if people were interested in what was going on in politics they'd hold their elected officials accountable and look into candidates and vote for the person best qualified for the job not the guy who has more billboard signs and television ads. Your argument makes no sense

[Juan Jose]

You're saying a lot of 'people spend money because they want to win' and 'there's intrest groups'; no shit. Might as well tell us water's wet and the sky's blue. We're discussing possible reforms to that fucked system.

I know, I know, a political system where you can't buy elections? :shudder:

You know what else would be crazy? If politicians were barred from attacking the positions of their opponents, and instead had to talk about what they themselves would do. Fucking. Insane.

:rolleyes:

Here's your solution:

money doesn't have to play any significant part in politics if people would actually take a good look at the people running, get registered in parties, vote every election and were more active in the public sphere

If you weren't trying so hard to be a snarky prick you would've read the rest of the post

[asmolitor]

I agree with public financing. Another reform that is necessary in relation to this is lifting the restrictions on third parties. Also, I think the pay of politicians should be restricted to about twenty-thousand dollars a year.
They're supposed our to be employees. They shouldn't make more than we do.

so all politicians should live in relative poverty?

wouldn't that cause an even more extreme push of candidates/politicians with higher net worths, those who can personally absorb the artificially lowered wage? and if someone were able to beat the odds (given the effects this would have on current campaign spending as well) and be elected as a "poor" person, wouldn't the perverse incentives of special interests given the small salary eventually take hold? wouldn't they be more predisposed to backroom deals knowing they can barely support themselves, and others?

wouldn't lowering their wage that low create the entirely opposite effect on candidates and institutions? i mean, since these effects don't take place in a vacuum - wouldn't this make matters entirely worse?

[caveBEAR]

Here's your solution:

If you weren't trying so hard to be a snarky prick you would've read the rest of the post

No, that's absolutely not my solution. Your solution is to change the way people view politics; it's not going to happen. People have shit to do, and not enough time to care (or know as much) as the average forum user here.

My solution is to change the way money is viewed and used in elections. It doesn't matter whether people start giving a shit or not, if the money to be made wasn't so heavily based around special interest groups, lobbyists, and general fortunes needed to enter, then it wouldn't matter if people gave a shit or not, people who genuinely wanted to do good (no matter which end of the spectrum they come from) would have a much better chance at getting elected than people who just want to climb the power or financial ladder.

[Juan Jose]

No, that's absolutely not my solution. Your solution is to change the way people view politics; it's not going to happen. People have shit to do, and not enough time to care (or know as much) as the average forum user here.

My solution is to change the way money is viewed and used in elections. It doesn't matter whether people start giving a shit or not, if the money to be made wasn't so heavily based around special interest groups, lobbyists, and general fortunes needed to enter, then it wouldn't matter if people gave a shit or not, people who genuinely wanted to do good (no matter which end of the spectrum they come from) would have a much better chance at getting elected than people who just want to climb the power or financial ladder.

So using taxpayer money to finance politicians' campaigns is the solution? good luck pitching that idea to people

[caveBEAR]

So using taxpayer money to finance politicians' campaigns is the solution? good luck pitching that idea to people

Who said anything about that? Let go of your preconception that campaigns need to cost ungodly amounts of money.

[Love As Arson]

so all politicians should live in relative poverty?
If the poverty rate is high and wages have stagnated, I do not think politicians should be getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, yes, to answer your question.




wouldn't that cause an even more extreme push of candidates/politicians with higher net worths, those who can personally absorb the artificially lowered wage? and if someone were able to beat the odds (given the effects this would have on current campaign spending as well) and be elected as a "poor" person, wouldn't the perverse incentives of special interests given the small salary eventually take hold? wouldn't they be more predisposed to backroom deals knowing they can barely support themselves, and others?

wouldn't lowering their wage that low create the entirely opposite effect on candidates and institutions? i mean, since these effects don't take place in a vacuum - wouldn't this make matters entirely worse?
All of the things you've mentioned go on at higher rates when they're getting paid well above the wages of average workers. If politicians were getting paid that much, perhaps they'd have a vested interests in bettering the conditions for those in that range of income.

[Juan Jose]

Who said anything about that? Let go of your preconception that campaigns need to cost ungodly amounts of money.

then what is your solution?

[caveBEAR]

then what is your solution?

Holy shit;

I'm retarded? You know that we could have political campaigns that don't cost millions, correct? We also could remove private enterprise from the influence they had. We could...try to follow me here...actually have people running for office who want to dedicate their time and resources to doing good, not just lining their pockets.

I'm not the one who put forward 20,000, but something needs to be done about the influence private enterprize has over our political scene, as well as the ammount of start-up money needed to even be considered a contender for office.

You're saying a lot of 'people spend money because they want to win' and 'there's intrest groups'; no shit. Might as well tell us water's wet and the sky's blue. We're discussing possible reforms to that fucked system.

I know, I know, a political system where you can't buy elections? :shudder:

You know what else would be crazy? If politicians were barred from attacking the positions of their opponents, and instead had to talk about what they themselves would do. Fucking. Insane.

:rolleyes:

No, that's absolutely not my solution. Your solution is to change the way people view politics; it's not going to happen. People have shit to do, and not enough time to care (or know as much) as the average forum user here.

My solution is to change the way money is viewed and used in elections. It doesn't matter whether people start giving a shit or not, if the money to be made wasn't so heavily based around special interest groups, lobbyists, and general fortunes needed to enter, then it wouldn't matter if people gave a shit or not, people who genuinely wanted to do good (no matter which end of the spectrum they come from) would have a much better chance at getting elected than people who just want to climb the power or financial ladder.

If you'd like to ask specific questions along those lines, feel free.

[Juan Jose]

Holy shit;







If you'd like to ask specific questions along those lines, feel free.

:-| .... You didn't specify how you would remove private enterprise influence. at least the other guys proposed using public financing to remove their influence.

[caveBEAR]

:-| .... You didn't specify how you would remove private enterprise influence. at least the other guys proposed using public financing to remove their influence.

What do you think they mean when they say, 'publicly funded'?

[circasuicide]

I'm retarded? You know that we could have political campaigns that don't cost millions, correct? We also could remove private enterprise from the influence they had. We could...try to follow me here...actually have people running for office who want to dedicate their time and resources to doing good, not just lining their pockets.

I'm not the one who put forward 20,000, but something needs to be done about the influence private enterprize has over our political scene, as well as the ammount of start-up money needed to even be considered a contender for office.

i guess i'm retarded, too.

[circasuicide]

less ads. more televised debates.

[saysmydoctor]

Come on guys, I think we can afford to pay the people who manage our country slightly more than the people who manage a McDonald's.
Well, if they were actually doing well at their jobs, I would consider it. The opposite is the case yet still they get pay raises. Which is ironic, considering they make comments about Wall St figures getting huge bonuses even though they derailed the global economy.

I'm not much of an apologist when it comes to politicians. Maybe if they did work that actually bettered our condition, I would reconsider. Until then, fuck them.

[saysmydoctor]

I also think it's important to point out that campaigning is, if I remember correctly, about a $2 billion industry in and of itself. I can't remember where I read this, so I can't source it.

[Juan Jose]

What do you think they mean when they say, 'publicly funded'?

:hitself:
No... I'm saying that at least they had a plan for how to remove the influence of private enterprise, I'm not saying it's right I'm just saying they have a solution the problem outlined by the OP.

Now I'm asking you what YOUR plan is. Fuck you're dense

[caveBEAR]

less ads. more televised debates.

Exactly. We're in a world where Tosh can make a show about shit everyone's seen on the internet, Keanu Reeve's looking sad can become an overnight meme sensation, and we know what Lindsey Lohan is doing 24/7. How come we can't have, in the world of DVR, C-SPAN 1-9, and all debates, different for the regions, so you can see televised debates for local shit, senate, presidential, what have you. They do it with baseball. As well, on my PBS, they have debates for local elections, and they forbid negative points on the other candidate. It's all about what they will do, or how they could expand upon an opponents idea...all building up, no breaking down. We can do the same at all levels. As well, put a cap on spending for campaigns. That way, let Doritos or exxon run candidate A or B, but the town of Whereever, USA can run their mayor as well. Let the people choose. Not just the best of- 2 part shit we have now. Options, education, etc. Less E!, more PBS.

/rant.

[caveBEAR]

:hitself:
No... I'm saying that at least they had a plan for how to remove the influence of private enterprise, I'm not saying it's right I'm just saying they have a solution the problem outlined by the OP.

Now I'm asking you what YOUR plan is. Fuck you're dense

Are you serious? Put a cap on campaign spending.

[circasuicide]

Exactly. We're in a world where Tosh can make a show about shit everyone's seen on the internet, Keanu Reeve's looking sad can become an overnight meme sensation, and we know what Lindsey Lohan is doing 24/7. How come we can't have, in the world of DVR, C-SPAN 1-9, and all debates, different for the regions, so you can see televised debates for local shit, senate, presidential, what have you. They do it with baseball. As well, on my PBS, they have debates for local elections, and they forbid negative points on the other candidate. It's all about what they will do, or how they could expand upon an opponents idea...all building up, no breaking down. We can do the same at all levels. As well, put a cap on spending for campaigns. That way, let Doritos or exxon run candidate A or B, but the town of Whereever, USA can run their mayor as well. Let the people choose. Not just the best of- 2 part shit we have now. Options, education, etc. Less E!, more PBS.

/rant.

and obviously companies would be jumping at the chance to pay whatever station to run their ads before, during, and/r after the debates, so it would be easily paid for. perfect idea.

[Zeran]

does anyone know the reasons why clean election referendums in california and alaska have been voted down by overwhelming majorities?

[captivewear]

Are you serious? Put a cap on campaign spending.
I agree but if they weren't ever going to do that I have one solution to helping America when it comes to politics.
Be able to say only what YOU would do not what your opponent can't do or has done.
All commercials, radio ads, newspapaer and magazine ads etc. can only be you the person running for office. So no more hate ads on what the other person running can't do or spinning the truth (that both parties are guilty of doing).
I want to hear what each person running has to say on the issues and their plan to change things.
The only time that the opponent can talk about the other person is in a debate which should be mandatory for all Senate, Governor and all higher held voted in positions. Make a 3-4 mandatory televised debates so the people can see where the people running for office opinions on social issues, economic issues and everything in between.
I think is a simple fix for something that is very wrong in politics.

[mcm1610]

I dunno about that though, because sometimes its just so much easier to go, "really, you're going to vote for this guy?" Take Paladino... how can you run against him and NOT blast him for being an idiot?

[caveBEAR]

I dunno about that though, because sometimes its just so much easier to go, "really, you're going to vote for this guy?" Take Paladino... how can you run against him and NOT blast him for being an idiot?

Paladino shoots himself in the foot enough. If the election/campaign came down to the candidates only speaking about themselves and what they'd do, Paladino would lose to a cockroach. Keep in mind, just because whoever's running against Paladino can't harp on the horrible shit he does, no one's stopping the media and interwebs from doing it.

People can hear about all the stupid shit people like Paladino do without their opponent reducing himself to, 'well, at least I'm not that guy'.

/wishfulthinking

[Zeran]

noam chomsky's take on the corporate takeover of u.s. democracy (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100124.htm)

[mcm1610]

I get so disturbed by corporate personhood and people's claim that it is somehow limiting someone's freedom by attempting to limit corporate personhood. If a collective body such as a corporation is full of people that feel one way or another toward a politician or some issue, let them individually vote that way. By allowing the corporation to throw its influence around, not only does it spend its money and wield it's power, but the people it is comprised of STILL GET THEIR INDIVIDUAL INFLUENCE as well. They get to double dip while the little people of America only get a tiny vote.

[jawstheme]

Those really wanting ot make a change would.

Like how teachers are teachers. They aren't doing it for the pay, they do it because they love their job.

Teachers make a lot more than 20,000. Plus great benefits and lots of time off. I know too many people going back for their teaching certifications for those reasons instead of love, although your statement used to be true.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Teachers make a lot more than 20,000. Plus great benefits and lots of time off. I know too many people going back for their teaching certifications for those reasons instead of love, although your statement used to be true.

I don't know where you're from, but in the area I'm in now, teachers make crap and that "time off" means no pay in one of the most expensive places to live in the world.

[mcm1610]

Well, to start, I'm sure NYC teachers make ~40,000, but I get you at the cost of living bit. But teachers in that area are pretty good at abusing a desperate public school district. Remember a few years ago when teachers were caught retiring, collecting a full pension, then going back into teaching and collecting another salary on top of it? There were a few making over $200,000 a year doing this.

[jawstheme]

I don't know where you're from, but in the area I'm in now, teachers make crap and that "time off" means no pay in one of the most expensive places to live in the world.

I'm in PA. They start at about $35 grand and average $55,000. I live in rural PA where there are no jobs and the teachers I know make more than that and definitely enjoy their time off.

Average salary where I'm at is $23,000 and that seems high http://www.simplyhired.com/a/local-jobs/city/l-Mansfield,+PA. Teachers are easily upper middle class here, and they definitely don't work summers.

[deFobbed14yrs]

I'm in PA. They start at about $35 grand and average $55,000. I live in rural PA where there are no jobs and the teachers I know make more than that and definitely enjoy their time off.

Average salary where I'm at is $23,000 and that seems high http://www.simplyhired.com/a/local-jobs/city/l-Mansfield,+PA. Teachers are easily upper middle class here, and they definitely don't work summers.

That's like opposite around here. You can't live off of 23,000 in New York. Or at least not comfortably.

[open mind]

although most fail to realize it this is truly the most important issue of our generation.
if we don't do something to tame the corporate beast soon there is no hope for the survival of democracy on this planet, let alone in this country.

[mcm1610]

That's like opposite around here. You can't live off of 23,000 in New York. Or at least not comfortably.

That's why NYC teachers start at over $45,000.

http://jd2718.wordpress.com/the-new-uft-contract/new-uft-nyc-doe-teacher-pay-scale-salary-charts/

I'm a teacher. As much as I'd love to bitch and say we deserve more, a) many teachers certainly do NOT deserve even what they get, let alone more. b) We're fine, at least in NYS and some of the better-education states.

http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

[deFobbed14yrs]

That's why NYC teachers start at over $45,000.

http://jd2718.wordpress.com/the-new-uft-contract/new-uft-nyc-doe-teacher-pay-scale-salary-charts/

I'm a teacher. As much as I'd love to bitch and say we deserve more, a) many teachers certainly do NOT deserve even what they get, let alone more. b) We're fine, at least in NYS and some of the better-education states.

http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

New York ranks high, but for the city, it's not a lot to live by comfortably. A lot of teachers even in my area took summer jobs.

[mcm1610]

A lot of teachers across the country take summer jobs. If you're sitting around idly while the rest of the population works, why WOULDN'T you supplement your income? It's really only toward the end of careers that your average teachers really start taking their summers off for 2.5 month vacations.

[jawstheme]

That's like opposite around here. You can't live off of 23,000 in New York. Or at least not comfortably.

23,000 is the average salary of a household. 35,000 is the average salary of a single teacher. I'm saying teachers have it good here.

[Zeran]

does anyone know some details about campaign finance in other countries? is the u.s. alone or not in allowing corporations such power to influence elections?

[deFobbed14yrs]

23,000 is the average salary of a household. 35,000 is the average salary of a single teacher. I'm saying teachers have it good here.

cool dude, you're the one who continued this discussion in a political reform thread. I'm just saying that teacher salary and how god it is depends on where you live....and that politicians should make less than they do.

[jawstheme]

cool dude, you're the one who continued this discussion in a political reform thread. I'm just saying that teacher salary and how god it is depends on where you live....and that politicians should make less than they do.

When did I complain about continuing this discussion? And I agree with your second sentence. Way to be a dick though.

[deFobbed14yrs]

When did I complain about continuing this discussion? And I agree with your second sentence. Way to be a dick though.

You just kept repeating yourself about how much PA teachers get paid, like i got it the first time. I didn't mean to sound bitchy, I just don't like repeating myself.

[captivewear]

First off no one here should be comparing what a Senator or House Rep and a Teacher. How many millionaire teachers do you know? 10%? At the Very most. How many millionaire Senators do you know of? 90% of them?
Most teachers do not make great money. Do some? Absolutely but for the most part most teachers do not make enough. Sure a teacher may make $30,000 a year but there are a lot of things people don't think about when talking about how much teachers make. With budgets getting smaller and smaller through the state's budget it is harder for teachers to get the supplies they need. I work at an elementary school and middle school and the teachers budgets for the entire year were $50 in supplies and $75 in printing credits. Now that is just wrong. Kids need to do art, science projects, computers etc. and having $50 isn't going to get much for all that they need.
At a time were politicians are taking corporate money and favors from there lobbyist "friends" and spending donations for the campaign on rent and shopping trips etc. we need to reform how campaigns are funded and run.
Some things that I would like to see done.
-Stop corporate funding of campaigns.
-Disclose ALL funds received. All names and amounts available to the public to view.

This one is the most important and one I think everyone should be all for...
-Make it to were the candidates can only talk about themselves in any ads and commercials. The only time each candidate can talk about the other person running is at an open forum debate.
This stops all these horrid "my opponent is a witch" commercials and ads.
This makes it so we can actually know what the candidates stand and what THEY are going to do in office not what the other person can't do.

[<*)))><]

My Dads girlfriend is a teacher assistant and she makes $140,000 a year.

[jawstheme]

First off no one here should be comparing what a Senator or House Rep and a Teacher. How many millionaire teachers do you know? 10%? At the Very most. How many millionaire Senators do you know of? 90% of them?
Most teachers do not make great money. Do some? Absolutely but for the most part most teachers do not make enough. Sure a teacher may make $30,000 a year but there are a lot of things people don't think about when talking about how much teachers make. With budgets getting smaller and smaller through the state's budget it is harder for teachers to get the supplies they need. I work at an elementary school and middle school and the teachers budgets for the entire year were $50 in supplies and $75 in printing credits. Now that is just wrong. Kids need to do art, science projects, computers etc. and having $50 isn't going to get much for all that they need.
At a time were politicians are taking corporate money and favors from there lobbyist "friends" and spending donations for the campaign on rent and shopping trips etc. we need to reform how campaigns are funded and run.
Some things that I would like to see done.
-Stop corporate funding of campaigns.
-Disclose ALL funds received. All names and amounts available to the public to view.

This one is the most important and one I think everyone should be all for...
-Make it to were the candidates can only talk about themselves in any ads and commercials. The only time each candidate can talk about the other person running is at an open forum debate.
This stops all these horrid "my opponent is a witch" commercials and ads.
This makes it so we can actually know what the candidates stand and what THEY are going to do in office not what the other person can't do.

I think teachers make enough and politicians make way too much.

[jawstheme]

You just kept repeating yourself about how much PA teachers get paid, like i got it the first time. I didn't mean to sound bitchy, I just don't like repeating myself.

I repeated myself once because you mistakingly thought the 23,000 number was for teachers. I don't know where you repeated yourself.

[deFobbed14yrs]

I repeated myself once because you mistakingly thought the 23,000 number was for teachers. I don't know where you repeated yourself.

I didn't mean 23,000 exactly. I said I wanted politicians to be paid less. 23,000 was an arbitrary number.

[Zeran]

bump. political scientist larry bartels has found that u.s. senators of both parties are much more responsive to wealthy constituents (http://www.scribd.com/doc/36931202/Larry-Bartels-Economic-Inequality-and-Political-Representation) than middle class or poor ones. republican senators were more than twice as responsive than democrats to wealthy constituents, while the bottom third of income earners appeared to have no influence at all upon their senator.

the u.s. absolutely needs campaign finance reform.

[crackedthesky]

Agreed. This is BS. Less than two percent of the population controls all of the legislating. That's not democracy.

[Zeran]

what's even more distressing other than the fact that those in the bottom third of wages have virtually no power in influencing their representatives was that those who donated to campaigns had much, much more influence than anyone else.

it seems as though a majority or at least many many people don't like the amount of money involved in our politics, but for some reason campaign finance isn't as big of an issue as it should be. why is that?

[crackedthesky]

Because the people who make that call are the ones getting the money?

[jawstheme]

Too many people say things like "well that's just the way things are." I hate that response so much. Like corruption in government or greedy capitalism is like gravity, and we just have to deal with it.

[saysmydoctor]

I think teachers make enough and politicians make way too much.
Depends on the district, their credentials, and how long they've been in the profession. The norm is the pay isn't a fair compensation--and most experts would say the same too.

[jawstheme]

Depends on the district, their credentials, and how long they've been in the profession. The norm is the pay isn't a fair compensation--and most experts would say the same too.

My point is that teachers aren't out there losing homes, starving, and getting untreated for medical conditions. There are many, many professions out there that are grossly undercompensated with little to no benefits. People need to get behind the entire working class. I'd like to see everyone have benefits similar to teachers, and I don't think it's unreasonable, or that teachers are more deserving.