Public Spending: Public University Football v. Public Campaign Finance

DUer http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2679017&mesg_id=2679017">leveymg has an excellent thread going, comparing the downfall of the Roman Empire with the current state of affairs in America.

As he aptly points out downthread, the American public is bought off with the modern equivalent of "bread and circuses," mindless entertainment to numb most prospective voters, and lull them into apathetic complacency.

Got me to wondering: how much do the 50 states spend on their state university football programs, as opposed to how much each sets aside to bolster public campaign finance funding at the local, state, and national level?

It seems to me that the principles of federalism would allow a state to set up its ***own*** public campaign finance pool, even for national candidates who campaign there. Strings attached to the funds could control some of the worst abuses.

The best part? GOP candidates who pay lip service to federalism principles would have to shut up and stomach it. After all, the states ARE "the laboratories of democracy," right?

- Dave

Many programs - especially the big ones - are self-financing and actually profit-centers for the school - bringing in more dollars than they cost to run.

If you want to publicly finance elections but then charge people to vote it would be comparable.

I don;t really disagree all that much with the general point - just a bad example of it. Public parks maybe?

But I see your point.

- Dave

Just pointing out that we'd have to do it before we could make that particular comparison.

... and yes, yes, I know, I know: it's "regressive," it disproportionately affects blah blah blah.

But you know what? Human nature is such that you tell someone they can't do something, and what do they do?

- Dave

There are a whole host of American Idol uninvolved types who are perfectly legal citizens who would have no hope of passing the test.

Of course - that was probably your point!

... I think there is a valid Fourteenth Amendment argument to make that so should natural-born ones, since the only privilege explicitly reserved for natural-born citizens is the office of the Presidency.

When it comes to idiots voting, I tend to be a strict constructionist.

; )

- Dave

and since I DID pass the test I think I'm OK.

However, politically it would be bad news for Dems I'm afraid. A two-edged sword for sure.

... I think not.

But then, I dare to dream.

- Dave

it's not hard to see we have good support in many sectors who would have trouble passing such a test, from the very elderly to the very low educational attainment.

I always hated when teams start whining wanting a new stadium, yet the team owners want the city/municipality to pay for it though taxes. How many homeless, or poor could millions of tax dollars like this help?

We do seem to have some strange priorities these days.

You can make some argument about TIF and the positive economic impact of pro sports teams, but in my mind that is simply a substitute the vast majority of the time. Football teams etc DO generate an awful lot of tax revenue, but if the fans are going to a game rather than spending that money on other taxed entertainment choices (which is essentially almost all of them) then it's not actually incremental.

The tax benefit of a big league stadium comes ONLY from money that otherwise would not be spent in your jursidiction. Most of the time stadia benefit only one city over another, with only out of state non-substitute spending benefitting higher levels of government.

And there are states that do their own publicly funded elections, Arizona and Maine are a couple, and I think that there are a couple of more out there. The trouble is getting this to go nationwide, and getting the legal backing to have candidates run their campaigns only on the public's financing.

Twenty six states can bring up the issue via an initiative petitioni. The other twenty four have to have the process go through their state legislature. Given the nature of politicians however, it is unlikely that will happen anytime soon, sad to say.

... coz that was a brilliant synopsis of the play on the field!

: )

- Dave

Her for the color, and myself for the play by play. She's got a good voice, and I spent six years in radio. Plus we're both usually waaaay ahead of the announcers in commenting on plays and the action on the field. Now if we could only find someway of getting the notice of one of the networks:think:

Seriously.

If the two of you enjoy doing voice work, I bet you'd love it.

It's fun.

- Dave