New at Reason

April 10, 2007

David Weigel breathes a sigh of relief as the wind goes out of public campaign financing.

Comments

|4.10.07 @ 7:59AM|#

David, Maybe you have some libertarian in you, after all. But your glee might be a little premature. The forces of evil that would make me fund the most distasteful candidates won't go away that easily. Especially after the media hypes that 1 BIIIILLION dollars over and over.

Goldwater Conservative|4.10.07 @ 8:49AM|#

Put the government back in the hands of the people? The same people that support almost every single stupid measure the government makes? The same people that supported the Iraq war (75%)?. The problem is the people. We need to abolish the direct election of Senators and institute a whole host of measures that keep the rabble at bay.

If the government was ever in the hands of the people, we would still be trying to end slavery . Although, no doubt we might have a more moderate form by now.

|4.10.07 @ 9:44AM|#

Goldwater Conservative,

I'm no expert on the Civil War or abolitionism, but I am skeptical about your opinion on the popularity of slavery among the American masses in the 19th century. I'd like to hear someone who knows about such things support or refute your assertion. The election of Abraham Lincoln and the popularity of _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ lead me to suspect that you are mistaken.

|4.10.07 @ 9:48AM|#

The source of the money for the candidates would be irrelevant if you reduced the amount of power that our politicians in Washington have. If there's no real power to be corrupted, then donations from special interests would drop (because they wouldn't get much for their money), and the rest would be history. But then again, that would require relinquishing power, and we could never have that, now could we?

VikingMoose|4.10.07 @ 9:53AM|#

*looks around. snorts. ambles away*

|4.10.07 @ 10:05AM|#

VM,

Agreed. Itsy bitsy power corrupts itsy bitsyly.

LarryA|4.10.07 @ 1:50PM|#

Having just refused to cough up my share of this $3.00 tax again, one problem I have with public financing is the lie they tell every year: "Checking a box will not change your tax or refund."

Yeah, I know, it won't change the bottom line on that return. But when the government gives megacash to candidates, sooner or later I get stuck with the bill.

VM|4.10.07 @ 2:14PM|#

plus was making sure there were no other Moose invading :)

(well stated, PL!)

|4.10.07 @ 3:27PM|#

How do you write this whole article and never mention special interests? The point is not to prevent regular people from contributing to their candidate of choice; it's to prevent massive special interests from owning candidates after funding their elections. Money buys votes. Lots of money buys lots of votes. Lots of money doesn't come from voters, but from interests. So interests buy votes.

|4.10.07 @ 4:28PM|#

Daniel - if you are going to post a spittle-flecked rant against "special interests", it might help if you defined them.

Is the ACLU a special interest? The UAW? How about the NRA? Emily's List?

|4.10.07 @ 6:57PM|#

Let me just say it is apparent the time for tax payer funded election is long over due. I know what you're thinking "my taxes are too high now" The reason you're taxes are too high is our Politicians are for sale to the highest bidder i.e.: Phiser, GE, Ford, and GM you get the point. Republicans say "Money is Free Speech" I say Bull S**t. If each politician received 10,000 dollars of tax payer money and 5 free TV or radio spots per election, for the first time in our history the (crooks) Politicians would work for us "WE THE PEPOLE" and not forPHISER, GE, FORD, GM, EXXON, you get the point. This system works in Europe. If any one reading this think the Politicians are working for us "WE THE PEPOLE" and not there corporate masters you're drinking the cool aid and need to wake up.

|4.10.07 @ 10:43PM|#

This system works in Europe.

Yeah, Europe. Home of low taxes, untrammelled civil rights and pure-as-the-driven-snow politicians. I want me some of that.

|4.11.07 @ 5:45AM|#

Do Not Mail Opt-Out Law would be fair to everyone.

The proposed recent "Do not mail" is an Opt-Out law. Only those not desiring advertising mail need opt-out. Anyone desiring advertising mail can do nothing - and continue to receive it. Why deny those wishing to avoid advertising mail the power to do so?

I do not consider handling unwanted advertising placed against my will on my personal property to be a civic obligation!

The US Supreme Court said in the Rowan case in 1970, ""In today's [1970] complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail. To make the householder the exclusive and final judge of what will cross his threshold undoubtedly has the effect of impeding the flow of ideas, information, and arguments that, ideally, he should receive and consider. Today's merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry in itself have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. It places no strain on the doctrine of judicial notice to observe that whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he finds offensive."

Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, "the mailer's right to communicate is circumscribed only by an affirmative act of the addressee giving notice that he wishes no further mailings from that mailer.

To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail."

We need a nationwide "Do Not Mail" law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders the aforementioned affirmative notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.

http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html

Signed,
Ramsey A Fahel

|4.11.07 @ 5:46AM|#

US Postal Service won't let you refuse mail.

If the US Postal Service would abide by its own rule, each homeowner could easily stop junk mail from getting into their mailbox by putting a written notice on their mailbox expressing their preference.

The US Postal Services practices are supposed to be according to the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM). The DMM contains provision 508.1.1.2 that says, "Refusal at Delivery: The addressee may refuse to accept a mailpiece when it is offered for delivery." I interpret this rule to mean that if a homeowner wants to refuse an unwanted mailpiece (i.e. junk mail), the homeowner can do so when the mailpiece is offered for delivery. More to the point - refuse it before it is put into the mailbox!


In practical application, since the postal carrier comes to homes at different times each day, the homeowner cannot be waiting at the mailbox to dialogue with the mail carrier about each mailpiece. The only realistic way to interpret 508.1.1.2 therefore is that the homeowner should post a notice on the mailbox telling the postal carrier about the homeowner's preference. The notice to the postal service must be specific and unambiguous. For instance, a homeowner should certainly be able to write, "No mail that is not addressed to the Jones" because that does not require the postal carrier to make a subjective judgment. On the other hand, it would not be acceptable to write "no junk mail" because the definition of "junk mail" is subjective and the mail carrier cannot decide.


Unfortunately, the US Postal Service has written to me that they will NOT honor a notice refusing mail, not matter how specifically it is worded, because the postal carrier does not have time to sort through the mail at my mailbox to pick out the pieces that are not addressed to me. Therefore, the US Postal Service is passing their sorting and disposing task onto me by putting all the mail they want into my mailbox, even though this seemingly violates 508.1.1.2.


Since the U.S. Postal Service will not abide by 508.1.1.2, homeowners need to stop unwanted mail at the source (i.e. by blocking the sender from sending it). We need a nationwide "Do Not Mail" law to create a one-stop, convenient place for homeowners to give senders notice that we do not want certain kinds of mail sent to our homes.


http://www.newdream.org/emails/ta19.html


Signed,

Ramsey A Fahel

LarryA|4.11.07 @ 12:26PM|#

In practical application, since the postal carrier comes to homes at different times each day, the homeowner cannot be waiting at the mailbox to dialogue with the mail carrier about each mailpiece. The only realistic way to interpret 508.1.1.2 therefore is that the homeowner should post a notice on the mailbox telling the postal carrier about the homeowner's preference.

Actually you just scrawl "Refused" across the envelope and leave it in the box.

just6dollars|4.13.07 @ 3:25PM|#

Public financing is only dead if we decide it is. If the American people understand how much big money in politics is costing them in terms of policies that impact their families.

We have to do a better job of getting the message out.