Talk:Campaign finance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "By the Wealthy, For the Wealthy"...

I recently reverted the edits made by 71.194.166.77 which appeared to be very biased. If anybody would like to reintroduce some of the information in an impartial manner, it would be greatly appreciated. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have, once again, reverted a bunch of edits by this same user. This is clear POV editing. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] JHMM13

Not mentioning any of that is very biased on your part, JHMM13. Im sorry you dont know anything about the campaign finance system besides what the people who benefit from it have told you, sir, but its a very valid criticism of the system, you should leave it in. Or modify in a way you think is fair, but to delete it all is very biased on your part.

-K2Dart

I would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about my level of intellect, but my goal in this matter is simply to put forth the information that exists in an unbiased fashion. Clearly from your statement above, you are coming at this from a biased viewpoint, and your writing tends to reflect that. I am not saying that your opinion is wrong, since I do agree with it in some sense, but please try to understand the purpose of Wikipedia and try to realize that there is more than one point of view on the subject. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
In that case, feel free to edit to make it sound less biased and use less strong language. But its clearly a facet of the discussion that cannot be left out by any reasonable analysis. (Previous unsigned comment by K2Dart)
I'll see what I can do in that way. I have added the "neutrality" tag onto this page so this doesn't turn into an edit war. Furthermore, you should sign your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag

K2Dart Has just removed the neutrality tag from the article despite the fact that the article's neutrality is still in dispute. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


I removed it because you have made no attempt to change it in the last 2 days and try to balance it as you say you care about. If you think its not neutral, which I think it is, then try to change it. There is no need to put that up there unless you want to make it neutral. Otherwise I could go around slapping that tag on anything really. (Previous unsigned comment by K2Dart)

Please do not remove the neutrality tag unless you've got a consensus opinion on your side, I think that is fair. I have not made any changes to the article because I don't believe I am the best person to write this article. However, I can recognize POV statements when I see them. For instance:
"Ultimately, the practice of political advertising should be abolished if we want all money out of political campaigns. This would be a democratic solution."
That is a highly weighted charge, my friend. What you have submitted sounds less like an article and more like a paper on the subject. I have read through this and I agree with your opinion at certain times, but this is not a balanced weighing of the issue. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I might change it sometime, but then you'll probably keep the tag. So you should change it.

This whole article is an opinion piece. I happen to agree with most of it, but thaty does not make is encyclopedic. It was irresponsible of the author(s) to write that editorial in the first place. Therefore, we need to blank the page and make it a stub, or we need to blank the page and write something completely new. I am willing to write a new article, but I want some consensus on what to write first. I propose we summarize the history of campaign fundraising (including scandals), give legal limits for various countries (I can do the USA but a Brit write legal limits for the UK), and then we shoould discuss fundraising techniques. THEN, at the end we can give the various viewpoints on the matter. However, the current article is POV and not of Wikipedia quality. Any comments/questions? -Tjss 02:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with blanking and stubbing until we can write a new article over keeping this on Wikipedia, but that's just my opinion. I think we should find some others before we take that drastic measure. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


I changed:
"It is commonly alleged that campaign finance contributions in exchange for promises of votes may lead to de facto corruption in democratic systems, even though such promises may be legal. Political analysts who value civic participation have observed that the main problem of tax money in politics is its use to purchase votes as demonstrated by the growth of government spending in most western democracies and the increases in the role of government in social programs."
because it sounds like it's saying that even if the government actually helps people, it's bad because it's bribery. That's a stupid anti-government statement, there's no reference to who the "political analysts" are or exactly what they said and where they said it, and there's no opposing view given. I changed the paragraph to the following, less extreme unsubstantiated statement:
"It's been alleged that campaign finance contributions in exchange for promises of votes may lead to de facto corruption in democratic systems, even though such promises may be legal."
I changed:
"In disciplines such as economics and public policy, public choice theory and collective action theory attempt to understand the effects of this kind of abuse of public power on the outcomes of political processes. The problems are compounded by seniority systems in legislatures which give more power to re-elected representatives than to new ones that may not be able to deliver on their promises of more government largess."
because it assumes there's abuse of power, otherwise the first sentence it ok. The second sentence isn't even clearly about campaign finance. Is the implication that legislatures allow re-elected representatives more campaign financing? Then say so and give a reference. I changed the paragraph to:
"Disciplines such as economics and public policy, public choice theory and collective action theory attempt to understand the dynamics of the political processes."
I changed:
"...and the campaigns of most prominent American politicians are funded by a variety of sources. Other countries take a more restricted view, and may for instance make all contributions from corporations illegal."
into:
"...and the campaigns of many American politicians are funded by a variety of sources. Some other countries take a more restricted view."
That takes care of the top part, for now. The rest needs work too.
I also added a link to my webpage at the bottom. -Barry- 06:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Very poorly written article

Depsite agreeing with the argument the author appears to present (campaign fiancing corrupts democracy) this article is very poorly written and actually hurts the case about campaign financing. I have currently no interest in the subject, although I have read some books on the subject before. I am going to add a cleanup tag. Maybe I can add some content later. EDITORS PLEASE DON'T SEE MY CLEAN UP TAG AS A "DIS"--I am only trying to help present the idea of Campaign finance reform, which I support, in a clearer, more encyclopedic, and more convincing way. Travb 12:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major Edit 1/15/07

In this edit I attempted to eliminate much redundant material, add balance, and improve organization. I hope to come back to it and add some more source links later. As many above have noted, this article was poorly written and highly charged with personal POV.

  • Good luck. May I suggest you ensure the article is actually about political funding. The issues of poltical funding in America is worth mentioning within the article, as a section, it should not be the focus of the article. A section or reference to political dontations in Australia might include this link I found today: [1]

[edit] Proposed subsumption of Campaign finance reform

  • Oppose merger from Campaign finance reform. I don't see a good reason to do so, and putting them together would create a very long article which would be prone to editorial shortening. ~ Rollo44 06:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time issue

The article should not state a proposition as fact (amount of time spent fundraising) which is not backed up by any serious information. An anecdotal newspaper article doesn't cut it. Overacker 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Worldwide view

This article should take a worldwide view, and link more prominently to the other political funding articles particular to each country.
Look at Category:Political_funding. There are a few specific country articles in there. Maybe this article should merely be a definition of Campaign finance, followed by a link to the articles for each country. That would give it more of a world view.--Lester 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)