A few questions I'd love to read more about in a future post:
1. In light of Citizens United, what can the legislature actually do to limit money in politics?
2. Have candidates, like Bernie I'd think, who don't except Super PAC donations had success? Wouldn't reform-minded candidates who on principle don't accept PAC money, be at too great a disadvantage (unless they have hundreds of millions of their own to blow on a race)?
3. I would add to your list: End the two-party monopoly over our elections and stranglehold over our government.
Thank you for the questions Marie! Here are my initial thoughts (though I will save the details for a future post as you said :)).
1. From what I understand, a large part of the problem is enforcement of the law, which would probably be the responsibility of the FEC, which I imagine is under the executive branch’s jurisdiction. I’ll need to fact check myself on that though. I also think it’ll come down to the courts. We’ve seen the GOP very successfully pursue the appointment of several judges who are a certain type of conservative (through the Federalist Society if I recall correctly). Democrats could take a similar approach, or a different one also aimed at the courts. I wouldn’t rule out legislation to solve the problem though.
2. Yeah that’s a really good question and point! I think a few candidates, like Bernie, have had success but that as you said money does pose a significant barrier. I do think a positive aspect of social media is that is levels the media/attention playing field in many ways.
3. Yeah that’s fair! I think having ranked-choice voting is a potential solution to the two-party duopoly. I also think having a proportional representation system, as many other democracies have, would allow for more parties; however, I’m not sure how possible that is in the U.S. but maybe on a local level somehow. Mainly, I think rank-choice voting as they recently had in the NYC primary is a promising solution!
Amen!
A few questions I'd love to read more about in a future post:
1. In light of Citizens United, what can the legislature actually do to limit money in politics?
2. Have candidates, like Bernie I'd think, who don't except Super PAC donations had success? Wouldn't reform-minded candidates who on principle don't accept PAC money, be at too great a disadvantage (unless they have hundreds of millions of their own to blow on a race)?
3. I would add to your list: End the two-party monopoly over our elections and stranglehold over our government.
Happy July 4th weekend!!
Thank you for the questions Marie! Here are my initial thoughts (though I will save the details for a future post as you said :)).
1. From what I understand, a large part of the problem is enforcement of the law, which would probably be the responsibility of the FEC, which I imagine is under the executive branch’s jurisdiction. I’ll need to fact check myself on that though. I also think it’ll come down to the courts. We’ve seen the GOP very successfully pursue the appointment of several judges who are a certain type of conservative (through the Federalist Society if I recall correctly). Democrats could take a similar approach, or a different one also aimed at the courts. I wouldn’t rule out legislation to solve the problem though.
2. Yeah that’s a really good question and point! I think a few candidates, like Bernie, have had success but that as you said money does pose a significant barrier. I do think a positive aspect of social media is that is levels the media/attention playing field in many ways.
3. Yeah that’s fair! I think having ranked-choice voting is a potential solution to the two-party duopoly. I also think having a proportional representation system, as many other democracies have, would allow for more parties; however, I’m not sure how possible that is in the U.S. but maybe on a local level somehow. Mainly, I think rank-choice voting as they recently had in the NYC primary is a promising solution!
I love this Sarah!
Thanks Mom!