Would treatment of political contributions as a credit on income taxes be a “gimmick” making world government more acceptable to mass media?
 
One pandemic disease in the US that can be blamed significantly upon the selected segments of mass media. Such disease can be designated as the quadrennial “presidentialitus” of widespread attention to the presidential ”aspirants” prior to the selections by the national conventions of the pertinent candidates. Mass media collects millions of dollars of advertising fees and readership which is essentially “much ado about nothing”. Only about 13 of the 52 states provide for Primaries, so that what happens at the National Nominating Conventions is significantly dependent, not directly upon the primaries, but upon the discernment of the politicians controlling who are the delegates to the national conventions.
 
The Republicans on Sept. 1-4, 2008 in Minneapolis have an opportunity to select an opponent to a known Democratic Candidate. He/she will be chosen in Denver Aug. 24-28. Either or both of the conventions might significantly ignore the results of the primaries.  Mass media collects advertising because millions have “presidentialitius”. Mass media seeks to impose upon each convention a “duty” to respond to the results of presidential primaries, notwithstanding the privilege of each convention to significantly ignore the results of the primaries.

In 1968, Nixon won the nomination notwithstanding relatively poor success in the primaries. Many Republican politicians wanted Nixon as the candidate without regard to evidence of anti-Nixon sentiment in the Republican primaries. Mass media is quite aware of propensities for “addiction to news”. Some “establishments” seek to promote newsworthy controversies by prolonging the traditional international law that breeds such antagonisms.
 
The treaty system is based essentially upon sovereign nations asserting their external clout. When and if many leaders of mass media are persuaded that dealing with global controversies on a constitutional basis instead of a “foreign affairs” basis could enhance advertising income for mass media, then world government  might be less disdained by mass media.  Possibly a “gimmick” providing that 80% of all “political” contributions should be applied as “credits” toward whatever “income taxes” were assessed at any and all levels of government might be effective in decreasing disdain for world government. Home Rule Globally suggested such “credit for all political donations” on all income tax reports as merely one of many “illustrative examples” of planks that might be useful. This differs from the advocacy by the Streit Foundation for a plank permitting only nations providing elections for the choice of a president as a critically desirable feature for world government. Home Rule Globally is vaguely “generic” in seeking to expedite formulation of a “yet to be invented” proposal that could win the voluntary ratification by nations aggregating the overwhelming clout of the world.
 
The gimmick is intended to prevent future legislators from imposing arbitrary limits on spending, a fear of segments of the mass media. Advocacy by some “do-gooders” for abolition of political donations by requiring governments directly to pay all political advertising costs has been opposed by some mass media executives concerned with perennial growth of the percentage of national income devoted to political advertising. Various governmental regulations of political advertising have made exceptions concerning a candidate spending personal funds for campaigns, thus giving advantages to very affluent candidates. An experiment using “quasi-subsidy” via “tax credits” for political donations would significantly decrease the benefits now available to affluent candidates. Whatever rules might be devised, the cleverness of scoundrels is such that further revisions are likely to be desirable within a century. Society has managed to survive notwithstanding unforeseen unfavorable consequences of innovations. Home Rule Globally offers such “gimmick” not as a plank   for which it seeks universal immediate support, but merely as among the “illustrative examples” that might be useful when the world is ripe for the launching of a supra-national federation.
 
Some unforeseen consequences could be expected from “quasi-subsidizing” all political donations, as from any other political change. However, the assumption of some unknown risks is justified by the critical importance of somehow developing a proposal that could overcome the difficult hurdle of “ratifiability” of a proposal for a world constitution. Such ratification by nations aggregating the overwhelming clout of the world prior to the 22nd century seems reasonably assured. Each year of avoidable postponement can be treated as a negligent homicide of millions of humans. Recognizing the desirability for expediting such launching can co-exist with bafflement about how to move toward such goal. 
 
Controversies about global problems could stimulate tremendous amounts of political donations when treated as “constitutional” issues instead of “foreign policy” issues. However, the denial of this potentiality has been among the factors stimulating the disdain by mass media for world government.
 
One of the needs for the world is an “opinion poll” that could stimulate reliable responses only from those who are officers or directors of media organizations having a potential audience of at least one million.  If such “quasi-subsidy” of mass media were not significantly rejected by such a selected opinion poll, then it might be a “saving grace” that could expedite publicity about generic efforts to seek to treat global problems as “constitutional issues” instead of “foreign politics” issues.