Edwards To Get Iowa SEIU Nod »
Edwards Proposes Populist Reforms
John Edwards spoke yesterday in New Hampshire, proposing an ambitious, ultra-populist government reform plan. The plan includes:
• A drastically altered system of federal matching funds, in which donations up to $100 would be matched by the government at an eight to one ratio, so that a single $100 contribution is equal to $1,000 given to the candidate. Edwards would also reduce the current maximum contribution of $2,300, indexed to inflation, down to $1,000 — thus making the maximum effective contribution $1,900, with matching funds.
• A ban on lobbyists' contributions to federal candidates, and a five-year prohibition from lobbying for former top government officials.
• A line-item veto.
• An annual "Citizen Congress" — an online town hall — composed of one million people.
Why is a line-item veto considered populist?
Puzzled.
October 14, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I see now. It's going to be restricted to use on "special-interest" spending. Anyone know if it's possible to have this type of limited veto power?
October 14, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're misunderstanding the matching system:
October 14, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like the match is on a sliding scale, but there is still a match at the upper limit.
October 14, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the line-item veto, the proposals are fine.
October 14, 2007 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I misunderstood the explanation of the matching system. It's now corrected.
And the only way to create a line-item veto is by a constitutional amendment.
October 14, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards also got the SEIU endorsement of Iowa yesterday, and he seems determined to play along the union/populist line he has benefit from all year.
October 14, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Continental Congress is not unconstitutional. If we want to save the Republic we need to let go of the Empire.
October 14, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"• An annual "Citizen Congress" — an online town hall — composed of one million people."
I like that one, but would prefer to make it an on-line Congress, period. Make Congresscritters do their jobs from home.
October 14, 2007 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I like that one, but would prefer to make it an on-line Congress, period. Make Congresscritters do their jobs from home."
The problem with that is the anonymity. You think you're legislating with some hot young Democratic Congresswoman, but it's really a chubby old Southern Republican man — and he's up to no good.
October 14, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am impressed that Edwards is putting specifics out to support his messages.
He's essentially saying that no one should enter the election cycle with aces up their sleeves, the aces being the lobbyist/corporate big checks. The candidates most willing to maintain the present power imbalance favoring the few over the many are exactly the candidates who've already compromised on the principle of fairly competing on merits; they count on having those extra aces to play with.
But, if I were part of the power elite in DC, I'd probably hear this and look for a way to throw even more money into the coffers of Edward's competition.
October 14, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is wrong with restricting individule campaign donations to the actual federal represenative (cut out multiple donations to others not representing your home district) of your home of record, directly to the senator for your state (texans donating to canadates in georgia who does not represent them etc.etc.), and presidential campaigns, other wise donations can go to party organizations and be limeted to a cap amount for an election cycle.
That would do a lot to cut the money influence and people like YOUNG of Alaska would find very little incentive to earmark for places out side of their district/state like a developers request to in florida which he would not have been legally able to donate directly to YOUNGs campaign to get.
Yes I am drinking and I like it.
October 14, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see something done on the spending side of campaigns -- how about requiring broadcasts stations to offer free air time to qualifying candidates, and if one candidate buys additional time over a certain amount, the other candidates get corresponding amounts of free time. It wouldn't restrict speech but it would create a mighty incentive to reign in spending.
We could also extend equal franking privileges to candidates who qualify for the ballot.
All that said, I'm very much in favor of Edwards' proposals here (though dubious about the line-item veto.)
October 14, 2007 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell is Edwards proposing? This will NEVER pass through Congress, he will lose his re-election in 2012 IF he ever wins.
The line-item veto sounds good, but the other proposals are just absurd.
"Citizen Congress" -- since when did we become socialist/communist? We send members in DC as trustee representatives, not delegate representatives.
Edwards is becoming too much. If he is nominated, I will even vote for Mitt Romney.
October 14, 2007 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The line-item veto is nuts. The matching funds idea seems OK.
Maybe no-one should enter the election cycle with aces up their sleeves, but some do, and you can't win without them. That sucks, but it's real and we have to deal with it.
What would be really neat-o is a candidate that would raise a lot of money from the usual suspects, beat his electoral opponent into a figurative pulp, and then institute reforms of this nature once he got in. A traitor to his class, if you will. Ah, but that would be hypocrisy and lack of character, wouldn't it? OK, forget it ...
October 14, 2007 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The line-item veto has already been determined unconstitutional. Does Edwards propose a Constitutional amendment?
And more welfare for politicians. Just what we need.
About what one would expect from one able to be decieved by George Bush to vote for the Iraq War.
October 14, 2007 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did he come up with this plan? In a bar with staff after a few too many? Instead of addressing campaign finance reform which is a periphreral issue, why not address reform of the tax code which effects us all? John Edwards is the candidate of specifics on issues that don't matter.
October 14, 2007 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: affects us all, not effects
October 14, 2007 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Edwards tax reform plan.
October 15, 2007 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually went to that site and his plan included several unfunded items similar to the dropped Clinton baby bond and her universal matching 401K plan. In this case, Edwards only offered $500 compared to Clinton's $1000. There are also more deductions and credits for things such as child care and other items. They may be needed but it is hardly significant change.
They also will serve to make the tax code more complex and make people more reliant on tax experts. More marginal stuff that nibbles at the edges but does not address the big picture of real reform and simplification of the tax code.
Also his plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts and raise the capital gains tax differs little from Clinton and Obama.
Edwards throws a few groups some bones but leaves the current structure basically intact. And he is supposed to be the candidate that is going to change the status quo?
October 15, 2007 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Edwards tax simplification plan.
October 15, 2007 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The banks that are funding Bush-Lite and Hussein Osama's campaign won't let them raise capital gains.
October 15, 2007 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh c'mon Anonymous. Enough with the links. Tell us in your own words how John Edwards plans to significantly change the current U.S. tax structure.
October 15, 2007 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am liking him more and more!
If we're mean change, let's get real about it.
Mo Dowd
30 Years BushCLinton?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071015/pl_afp/usvote2008dynasty_071015124048;_ylt=Ag78IVbCbLB_8Iu8iYukXV1h24cA
October 15, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's some very interesting ideas here. Edwards is really pushing the envelope on government ethics reform. Good for him. I see Obama and Edwards as both strong candidates on this issue, though Obama's track record includes delivering actual legislation on these issues and his approach to politics is perhaps a little more pragmatic. I'm very happy with Edwards, but prefer Obama for those reasons. I don't think we'd see anything on this front from Hillary "lobbyists are people too" Clinton.
October 15, 2007 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink