No Joke: Colbert's Campaign May Run Afoul of Law

Nice article detailing the swamp that Colbert is wading into.

Follow up with "Clean Election"

My last post was rather jaded toward campaign finance reform. But as many students have expressed in blogs, money has a lot to do with parties, candidates, and the party system... which may make things less democratic.

I criticized this issue due to lack of a concrete way for money in politics to get in control. I followed up with what campaign finance people on campus to see what they thought about my concerns. I found out they are doing some interesting things with petitioning for local legislation, make college government "clean" (meaning many different things and will have to be well defined) as well as gaining support from candidates who are willing to run a "clean election." What I was surprised to find out was that they have had some success in a few states/elections (2 to be exact). Here's some evidence of the success of this reform effort from Democracy Matters:
"Maine:• In 2006, 78% of the Maine legislature had run as "clean candidates," owing their allegiance to no one but their constituents.• The number of competitive races doubled between 1998 and 2004, and the number of incumbents re-elected declined.• In 2004, 8 of 11 third party candidates (Green Party) qualified for the same level of public financing as other candidates."

Like we talked about in class today (10-18-07), money affects access, which affects how the entire party system looks and works. There are obviously other structural and psychological factors that may.

Maybe Wisconsin could be the next or maybe it will have to start with UWM's Student government. It seems that if enough people care about money in campaigns (like expressed in 421 blogs) there could be an increase in "clean elections."

The Difference Between a Party and a Faction

In today's New York Times, James Dobson nicely sums up the difference between partisans and issue activists:

The other approach [to voting], which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.

The text of the op-ed reads like a not-to-subtle threat to the GOP presidential candidates.

Does Democracy Matter?

From reading many of your posts last week, I mulled over previous notions about campaign finance reform, clean elections, and other notions that seemingly advocate for a political system with less focus on money and more focus on the masses.

Reform is a political beast. Honestly, reform of financing in our system seems so overwhelming in terms of what can actually change. The McCain-Feingold reform was a rollercoaster with lots of hype, but in the end it was just a bunch of loopholes. This is frustrating to those who value the ideals of democracy.

There are advocacy groups, one here on campus in fact, that work toward cleaner elections. Group's website. Their ideas are working toward a more ideal democracy; potentially a more democratic democracy, but how do I know it will matter? Activity toward reform still seems so overbearing it's hard to latch onto on more than a conceptual basis.

Reform is a political beast, but just not a sexy beast.

A Guide to the Political Herds (nytimes.com)

The link to the New York Times piece on political herds as mentioned in class on Monday. It's a fancy flashy web interactive experience.