Wolf-PAC - General - Facepunch Forum

[url]http://www.wolf-pac.com/[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf-PAC[/url] [quote]Wolf-PAC is a political action committee formed with the goal of removing money from politics.[/quote] [url]http://www.wolf-pac.com/28th[/url] [quote][B]28th Amendment:[/B] Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.[/quote] What are your thoughts on Wolf-PAC? As someone who's not very informed in politics and from what I see so far on their site, I'm pretty supportive of what they're trying to do. I think it's going to be nearly impossible for that amendment to be passed however, especially in this day and age. I find it surprising that they aren't receiving more support than they currently have right now, so I'd imagine there would be a lot of criticism against them.

It's intentions look good

[quote]No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.[/quote] given the apathy of most voters, you can't possibly expect someone to be able to run a campaign on that kind of money. Make it 1000.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;44345811]given the apathy of most voters, you can't possibly expect someone to be able to run a campaign on that kind of money. Make it 1000.[/QUOTE] That's how it is in many states and their elections work perfectly.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;44345811]given the apathy of most voters, you can't possibly expect someone to be able to run a campaign on that kind of money. Make it 1000.[/QUOTE] I think public financing is meant to be the main funding source, with private donations second to that. Wolf-PAC don't go into much detail on what they really want though, but maybe they're leaving that to the Convention to figure out. The proposed [url=http://www.publicampaign.org/fair-elections-now-act]Fair Elections Now Act[/url] is very similar to what Wolf-PAC wants but is far more detailed, so here's how such a system might work: [img]http://imgkk.com/i/sq1g.png[/img] They estimate it would cost $750-850 million a year.

less than 1 billion a year for a comprehensive campaign finance overhaul? too bad this will never work, the republicans are increasingly being financed by a smaller pool of individuals, while the democrats have had unions locked down for decades, doing this would mean unions with hundreds of thousands of members would suddenly be the new super PACs, as well the NRA would also become the republican's greatest financer then too i guess. i hope something is done before 2016 where you'll see billions of dollars on each side vying for the presidency but like immigration reform, its something politicians like to talk about infront of cameras but keep locked in sub-committies [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] there's two ways to get an amendment passed btw, congress passes it, and all states ratify it. or all states pass similar amendments, and they go to a convention to ratify it both ways i doubt this would ever pass

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;44345811]given the apathy of most voters, you can't possibly expect someone to be able to run a campaign on that kind of money. Make it 1000.[/QUOTE] They should leave it at $100 because it government is gonna be paying for most if not all of the costs.

If I dig far enough into my posts I posted an idea exactly like this

The only problem I can really see with it is that it can unintentionally bite independents and minor party candidates, those who may have trouble receiving funding support from a significant number of individuals willing to donate, on the ass. For example, a green party candidate might find it easier to seek financing from a single environmental interest group, rather than by seeking financing from hundreds of potential supporters which would in itself present a significant cost to the candidate (hiring people to do door knocking, ads asking for donations etc). I know that the Wolf-PAC mention public financing of campaigns, but they aren't very specific in the requirements for a candidate who seeks public financing. Does the candidate need to present a certain number of signatures to the electoral commission? Do they have to already have a minimum amount of private financing? Until those questions are answered, I won't comment on the public financing bit. What I believe is that their should be a cap on the amount of [i]total[/i] private financing (and adjusted for inflation), rather than capping individual donations.

I wouldn't put a cap on it, but I wholeheartedly agree that corporations are not people. I can't believe that ruling.

Also, the conditions need to be made that actually allow for candidates that are independent or from smaller parties to be elected. For example, single-transferable vote, a proportional (and preferential) voting system, allows for multiple representatives from a single electorate and generally increases the chance of smaller parties and independents winning a seat. it also means that a significant majority of the population will have representation, rather than only a simple majority (or a plurality in the US) of voters being represented in single-member electorate systems. STV itself is also relevant to campaign financing, as it allows candidates on similar platforms to share campaign costs. [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=outlawpickle;44365913]I wouldn't put a cap on it, but I wholeheartedly agree that corporations are not people. I can't believe that ruling.[/QUOTE] One of the reasons for putting a cap in place is because of elections to marginal seats (would also like to mention that the concept of marginal seats doesn't exist in STV). Unlike safe seats, a marginal seat is one where it's very likely for a candidate from either party to win the election. Without a cap on financing, it is entirely possible that the candidate who sinks the most money (collected from financing) into advertisements may win the election. When you cap total financing, you force candidates to be more creative.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44365904] I know that the Wolf-PAC mention public financing of campaigns, but they aren't very specific in the requirements for a candidate who seeks public financing. Does the candidate need to present a certain number of signatures to the electoral commission? Do they have to already have a minimum amount of private financing? Until those questions are answered, I won't comment on the public financing bit. What I believe is that their should be a cap on the amount of [i]total[/i] private financing (and adjusted for inflation), rather than capping individual donations.[/QUOTE] Well I'm assuming the basic idea in Wolf-PAC would be properly applied to how our government works when the amendment is being ratified by people more familiar with law.

[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;44366143]Well I'm assuming the basic idea in Wolf-PAC would be properly applied to how our government works when the amendment is being ratified by people more familiar with law.[/QUOTE] Watch how if the Wolf-PAC gains momentum in state legislatures, that it is hijacked by pro-corporate funding politicians who twist its aims and minimise its impact against private financing. Seriously, without a strong platform to stand on it's going to be manipulated. "All elections must be publicly financed" could mean anything from campaigns of candidates being financed 99% by the government, to the government giving a flat amount of $100 to candidates (it's public financing after all).