Talk:Campaign finance

"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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by K2Dart (talk • contribs) 07:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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. -K2Dart — Preceding unsigned comment added by K2Dart (talk • contribs) 07:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

It's true though. U.S. politicians sell votes for money. They've ruined the economy and now they are selling away our liberty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.5.98 (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K2Dart (talk • contribs) 07:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K2Dart (talk • contribs) 17:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EABSE (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• 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] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsPlum (talk • contribs) 06:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose merger from Campaign finance reform. I also don't see a good reason to do so ~jrg7891 20:07, 2 April 2007

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)

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)

• This contribution offers a really great idea: Define the subject and link to the country articles that are available already. I absolutely agree to this proposal! Khnassmacher (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

'such as Britain'

TV Advertising in Britain is free...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.153.184 (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken Reference

The first reference, to a web.mit.edu hosted article, is no longer available at the specified URL. The statement for which it is cited implies an analytic consensus that donors are not attempting to influence candidates, a proposition that seems dubious. If the contention is indeed unsupported, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.40.234 (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Political finance

While Political finance may be a larger term, I wonder if at this point it wouldn't be better just to merge it here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Before starting the article on "political finance" I have tried to improve "campaign finance" and give it a more worldwide view (as was proposed by some wiki editor in the banner flying on top of the article). Unfortunately the whole article on "campaign finance" has a heavy U.S. bias (perspective, terms and phrasing, problems, examples). Thus I gave up and started my own article.

My counterpropositon would be to put a lot of effort into crossreferences and redirects, so that each individual user can choose among the information provided from different viewpoints. If anyone can make an effort to merge, please go ahead. I do not want to be part of it because as a European I am not willing to look at the whole world from somewhere between the California coast and the Cumberland Gap.

In the section on "the study of political finance" I have provided information on the scholarly process from Pollock and Overacker to A.J. Heidenheimer, H.E. Alexander und A.B. Gunlicks (by the way three U.S. citizens who have been around). Khnassmacher (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Having multiple articles with opposing viewpoints is not allowed, as our core policy is that all articles must have a Neutral point of view. See also wp:POVFORK for some more information about this. The way forward seems to me to merge both articles into a single article titled political finance with a worldwide view in the lead and then country specific (or perhaps continent specific) subsections. We also have Campaign finance in the United States, which is closely related to this article and could be used to merge content. Yoenit (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was not thinking of opposing viewpoints. However, looking at the subject matter from different sides of the Atlantic Ocean may result in different views and terms, especially as far as the role of parties is concerned. In Europe various party organizations (headquarters, branches and chapters) are the units that raise and spend political funds. An (individual) "campaign" (as mentioned in the current article) will not be seen as a fundraising and spending unit. Thus a "neutral" approach would have to avoid such language.

There are various country-specific pages on the subject. I have tried to enter cross-references to all of them with all other pages that are related to the subject. Thus a general page on "raising and spending political funds" (maybe "campaign and party finance" or "costs of democracy" - with cross-references and redirects - would be good titles) should supplement these country-specific pages. I see no point in using individual countries as sub-headings for the general article. Khnassmacher (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

After waiting for about 18 months I would want to get a decision on the merger proposal, which I have opposed right from the start. In the meantime nobody responded affirmatively to the idea to merge an article on a wider subject (i.e. political finance) into one on a smaller subject, which is campaign finance. So, I find it's about time to remove the banner/ template with the merger proposition.Khnassmacher (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right there is no consensus. Before I withdraw the merge notice, let's ask the community once again, this time through an RFC, which should give this issue some wider visibility. If no consensus will appear in a month or so, then I will withdraw this proposal. PS. I am sorry, I read your argument above (from 2011) but I am not following you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

o.k., so let's wait and see. Khnassmacher (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC

Should political finance be merged to campaign finance? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose You know I don’t think so, because for example, if in a country as an example, there were no campaign finances then we cannot tell there is also no political finance.KhabarNegar (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Merge there is some theoretical distinction but none that can't be covered in a combined article, so for any practical purposes the vast majority of readers would be well-served by a merge. EllenCT (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not "some theoretical distinction" but a different way of life: U.S. politics is centered around "campaigns", politics in most other countries are centered around "parties". Is anybody able to bridge that gap? I have tried very hard more than two years ago and I had to give up, finally. So, the disagreement is not about theory, it's about the very practical task to produce a joint article. Khnassmacher (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Most political spending occurs in the run-up to announced elections, whether it is called an election campaign or not. Even in Denmark where they have minimal political ads, the character of media interviews in the run-up to elections is very different and campaign-like than at other times. But in the major English speaking countries US, UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and even India and Pakistan, most political spending is centered around election campaigns. EllenCT (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what your sources are for this very general statement. It may be true for the US, Australia, South Africa, India and Pakistan. However, my own research about data for the UK, Canada and various countries in Western Europe (among them Sweden, Germany and Austria) indicates that the bulk of political spending originates with parties (not campaigns or candidates) and is spent on the routine operation of a full-time party organization. Khnassmacher (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Is ordinary party spending not a long-term campaign for its platform? EllenCT (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If so, it would not make much sense to make a difference between routine and campaign spending. However, platforms don't just exist, they must be prepared (sometimes in endless rounds of discussion and meetings before they finally are adopted by a convention) and all other policy development that takes place is not just campaigning. And what about party meetings, conferences and committees. Are they just campaigning? If voters knew what is going on there they would never bother to vote. Khnassmacher (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merging. Per the point made by Khnassmacher about the expenses for routine operations and paying full-time staff that is not conncted particulary to election campaigns. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Parties are financed away from election-time too. Number 57 21:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see now what you meant, somehow I missed it the first time around. This is certainly a valid point to be made; you and Iselilja have convinced me that this merge may not be necessary after all. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If so, how about removing the template? Khnassmacher (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

@Khnassmacher: I agree there's no consensus to merge; please go ahead and remove it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dark money

I propose that the article Dark money be merged into the section Campaign finance#Regulation. To the extent it deserves a topic at all, it is a sub-sub-topic of Campaign finance regulation by way of Campaign finance disclosure requirements to "Dark money" (bypassing campaign finance disclosure requirements). Campaign finance regulation or campaign finance disclosure requirements might be spun off to a separate article, but Dark money is too specialized a term to deserve a separate article.

There is an editor who states that I have inappropriate ideas as to the meaning of "freedom", "democracy", and some other terms. That discussion has no place on Wikipedia, except as to a discussion as to whether he or I is acting improperly on Wikipedia.

Although I believe some of the disclosure requirements morally wrong, and, as does the US Supreme Court, some of the US requirements legally wrong, they do exist, and deserve WP:NPOV comment, not the unadorned statement that disclosure is good and bypassing disclosure is bad. But that's not relevant to the merge request. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merge per the evidence provided at the last AfD and per WP:KOCHDONTLIKEIT. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to your policy, that if Koch Don't Like It, it must be said on Wikipedia, regardless of the gossip-column source. (Yes, that is a personal attack. As you have said nothing coherent that I have seen which isn't a personal attack, it seems appropriate.) Still, perhaps it could be merged into a spin-out article on campaign finance disclosure regulations. That would give it more prominence.

I read the AfD. A merge was not discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I dunno...it seems the other guys may like it even less than your 'Kochtopus', V. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - The subject easily stands on its own. It makes no sense to bury it here.- MrX 00:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The subject generally stands on its own, but it would merge well into a general article on campaign finance disclosure regulations, to the extent that it doesn't become an anti-Koch rant, which is probably want V would like. What can legitimately be said (which is much less than is presently there) would combine well with an article on (US) campaign finance disclosure regulations, or "campaign reporting and how to avoid it". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree - because of its top heavy U.S. bias this article (campaign finance) is no good to international readers anyway. However, this should not be a reason to produce more separate articles on other U.S. ideosyncracies. Khnassmacher (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - The subject is a stand-alone topic, because it is not confined to campaigning, but has more to do with lobbying. Politicians are susceptible to lobbyists' influences regardless of how their election campaigns were funded.JGabbard (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. But at the moment, the article (and most discussion of seen of the topic) seems to not touch on that aspect. Perhaps because reliable information cannot be known about it, and the best anyone can do is provide conjecture? In reality, though, are the two not intimately tied together, whether the money is "dark" or not? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree - It could be presented in a more comprehensive and globalized way in the context of campaign finance in general. As a standalone, there is too little context and continuity between the main topic and this subtopic. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Heard

Because the title of the book is the message, I do not feel that a specific page should be given. If anybody disagrees, I will try and find one. Khnassmacher (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits I plan to make

I plan to make the introduction shorter, add citations to existing text, and get rid of any subjectivity. Nmohnatkin (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)