Options
Public Campaign Financing
qwerty1
Posts: 142
100%. That will be the only way to make US elections and governing fair again. Right now the congress works for the big donors. Public financing would mean congress might actually work for the people. In the long run more money would be saved then spent on the elections.
Ending gerrymandering, and having an independent board drawing districts along existing county lines, major highways and physical features would help too!
And why do I never hear those 2 subjects brought up on CNN, MSNBC or FOX?
Your thoughts...
Ending gerrymandering, and having an independent board drawing districts along existing county lines, major highways and physical features would help too!
And why do I never hear those 2 subjects brought up on CNN, MSNBC or FOX?
Your thoughts...
This sidewalk is for regular walking, not for fancy walking!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I completely agree with you.
When I tell my friends from other countries that you can't really limit campaign contributions because the Supreme Court said money=speech, they can't believe it. One of them said "your government actually seems to want to *hurt* poor people."
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
That wasn't the exact ruling. What limiting money does is it limits a person's right to gather with other like-minded people and voice his opinion on a matter.
C'mon. It protects rich people and industry and trade associations. And that's what it's for. You know that.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
Is that really what the First Amendment is for? If you feel so strongly about it, you should call for its repeal.
I don't think we would be endangering the First Amendment at all. If the CEOs of say the Pharmaceutical industry want to make a personal contribution they still can.
So the way to make elections fair is to rob the public? Gotcha.
How about a much simpler solution: don't vote for a candidate that spends $50m to get a $80k/year job.
Obviously, I don't think that's what the First Amendment is for. I think that's what the First Amendment has become in the hands of the Supreme Court.
The First Amendment -- like all of the Bill of Rights -- is an aspiration, a goal. We aren't quite there yet -- because, for one thing, through our campaign spending laws, we give rich people and industry more speech than we give ordinary people. But we keep trying and sooner or later, we'll get it right.
Repeal the First Amendment -- tee hee -- you're so funny.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
Everyone is created equal. But those with money are more equal than others. Why does that not sound right?
If anything 100% public finacing strengthens the first amendment, not weaken it.
So would you say that government control of television wherein each citizen gets 3 seconds of air time to speak their mind would "strengthen the first amendment"?
If government were reduced to what it should be, there would be no need to buy influence, as the congress would have nothing to offer in return.
What are you getting at here?
The first amendment gives you the right to speak. It does not grant you a venue.
If we consider political donations a free-speech issue, banning the rich from donating and forcing those who do not wish to donate, rich or poor or otherwise, to give tax money to compaigns does not "strengthen the first amendment". Rather, it weakens it.
Everyone has a venue when you go and cast your ballot. Public finacing ensures that the rich vote is no more powerful than the poor vote.
As for people who dont want their tax dollars going towards that, well there are lots of things where your tax dollars go to that you would not be happy with. Are you happy that 2 billion dollars a week go to Haliburton, Boeing and KBR..errr I mean the Iraq war?
This is why the debate is needed. Not everyone is going to like public finacing. However I think if the voting public looks at the pros of it, they would embrace it.
Why? Are you naive enough to think that people will not still be able to buy influence if you make campaign funding 100% public?
No, I'm not happy about that. Is it your contention then that one misery justifies a thousand more?
I doubt that. But perhaps they might. The voting public seems to love bad ideas these days.
Curruption will always exist, but the scale that its at today is just mind boggling!
Public financing is hardly a misery!
Perhaps the public would stop loving bad ideas if huge donors did not have the influence to buy their hearts and minds.
The system is clearly broken, can you agree on that? If so, how would you suggest that it be fixed?
On a side note, im booking off work early today!
Amen to that. But that corruption comes from concentration of power, not from financing schemes. If you want to end government corruption, decentralize government power.
It is to someone like me who has no interest in providing money to the fools that run for federal office in this country.
Perhaps the public would stop loving bad ideas is the public took their hearts and minds off the market.
Yes, I agree. I suggest it be fixed in this fashion:
1) Stop voting for candidates who have nothing more to offer than money.
If the system is to be fixed, it should be done with more full and complete disclosure rather than taking away the rights of the citizens to support a candidate as we choose. The general election for President is mostly public financing and that doesn't seem to have eased anyone's mind about their perception of corruption. Look at the history of campaign finance reform in this country. Every time a new law has been passed taking away the free speech of the average citizen, elections have become less and less competitive.
Then support your candidate by word of mouth and other communication. We don't need to know which person can raise the most money, we need to know which person is better fit to be our leader.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
How does a candidate get the word out to a mass of voters with no money? Mail is expensive as are phones, TV, radio, gasoline, airfare, etc...
get off your ass, email, myspace, have alotted time on tv for debates...we already alot time for SOTUAs and similar things.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Email lists cost money as well. If we alot equal time on TV (the only way to make it fair) for all who want to run without the pressure of raising money, we won't have network television left. We would have to fund hundreds of campaigns from the serious to the insane. Would debates start taking place inside of football stadiums? How long does each of 100 candidates get to speak?
It would mean that the Democrat candidate and the Republican would receive the exact same amunt of money to buy adds, send out flyers, rent offices, etc.... The exact amount would varry depending on the district. A district in LA or Dallas would obviously be funded more than the district in Montana or Alaska due to the cost of advertising. If there is a strong 3rd party candidate, there should be some sort of threshold for funding to apply to him/her.
Each candidate would be able to spend the money on whatever they wanted to, but the idea would be that there would be an even playing field.
When the public funds its candidates, whoever it may be, the candidate might actually start governing for the people, ans not a big oil company or trade union.
Communism is cool.
There would most definitely be tweeks to work out but it's a better direction than the current one.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Every time we halfway restrict the speech of the people with these ill-advised "campaign finance reform" laws, the election process becomes more of a coronation ceremony for the wealthy and for the incumbents.