PDA

View Full Version : Elections Would you support 100% publicly funded elections


healthpellets
08-23-2010, 03:36 PM
would you support 100% publicly elections?

no corporate donations, no 501 c3 3498-023 groups running commercials. no special interest groups.

donations from individuals limited to $100 or maybe even nothing.

feel free to share your thoughts.

poll coming.

Saul Good
08-23-2010, 04:06 PM
No, but I would support a ban on public corporations making contributions. I don't think it is their place to donate money to anything, even charities

alnorth
08-23-2010, 04:18 PM
no. I do not believe in limitations of any kind from anyone to anyone or from anyone's personal pocket to their own campaign.

Now, it does get more interesting when you are dealing with non-human entities like unions and corporations. I think it would be fair to insist on some sort of membership vote or a shareholder authorization (doesn't have to be specific, an "I agree to let the leadership of my union/company I own stock in make contributions as they see fit, signed Joe Smith" works for me.)

Presuming that you can prove that the majority of people making up the non-human entity agrees with the contribution, then that should be fine too.

Oucho Cinco
08-23-2010, 06:20 PM
Until something like that comes along people like George Soros will bankroll the democrats and buy the election.

healthpellets
08-23-2010, 11:12 PM
i'm really torn on this. i think that an election on actual ideas or platform would be really interesting. then again, i'm pretty sure that the feds shouldn't be funding elections.

but i'm also not 100% convinced that giving money to a candidate is protected political speech. but it is what it is.

anyway, as much as the big spending republicans would truly hate this, it might be time we put it on the table.

imagine a congress where the members aren't beholden to any special interests and are truly free to vote their conscience fearing only the reprisal of the electorate, not the funders of their campaign.

patteeu
08-23-2010, 11:43 PM
No. Period.

healthpellets
08-24-2010, 12:51 AM
No. Period.

Just because?

patteeu
08-24-2010, 01:03 AM
Just because?

No, the period just means that I'm not torn on the issue. I don't think people and the groups they voluntarily join (corporations and unions, for example) should be prevented from using their wealth to promote their pet issues/candidates. In addition to that, I don't want the government collecting money from me and then handing it to a candidate I don't agree with.

oldandslow
08-24-2010, 05:00 AM
No. Period.

Yes, absolutely.

blaise
08-24-2010, 05:13 AM
No. I don't see why they can't spend their money in support of a candidate.

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 09:23 AM
Yes. Basically, politics and politicians are corrupted and compromised because they need to be in order to get access to the funds they need to be (re)elected. That's appears to me to be an inherently moronic system.

bkkcoh
08-24-2010, 09:27 AM
Just shed the light on the contributors and how the campaigns spend the funds

RaiderH8r
08-24-2010, 09:46 AM
No. Period. All limitations on contributions and spending inherently and overwhelmingly favor incumbants. I support full disclosure of any and all contributions over $5 of cash and any and all services provided as "in kind" contributions. Cutting all the purse strings means any Joe Blow from Cocomo can run for office. Any Joe Blow can get a $5 million check and immediately become a contender. As long as I know he got his $5 million from _________ I can make an informed decision on whether or not I think that is a problem and vote accordingly. You can't keep money out of politics, can not happen, will not happen and any effort to make it happen only gives that money more leverage because now it is not only money it is a "secret" and that makes the donor a "secret keeper" and that carries a considerable amount of weight too. If I decide I can make a go without my $5M sugar daddy then I sever ties and move on and nobody has anything on anybody. But if they got the goods on me...well...that's a different story.

Moreover, in DC one of the big problems is these guys don't hang out anymore. They used to have standing poker games, wives went shopping and it made the city much more cordial. It is hard to eviscerate a guy when you know his wife and his kids. But when the guy across from you is just a boogey man it gets easy to be an a-hole...a little like the internet that way. One of the reasons for this is that Members run back to the districts (especially in the House) to fundraise. Raising money has become as much of a time sink as legislating. Now, some will say that they will just raise and raise and raise which is probably true. But there is only so much air time for commercials and only so much ad space for print and last and not least...there is only so much tolerance the public has for their bullshit. And right now that tolerance is pretty much maxed out. Under my plan I could see people buying ad time and just saying, "Keep watching your football game ad free from RaiderH8r for U.S. Senate. I am RaiderH8r and I endorse Bronco Football" How funny would that be?

HerculesRockefell
08-24-2010, 09:56 AM
No, the period just means that I'm not torn on the issue. I don't think people and the groups they voluntarily join (corporations and unions, for example) should be prevented from using their wealth to promote their pet issues/candidates. In addition to that, I don't want the government collecting money from me and then handing it to a candidate I don't agree with.

This.

Also, how do you determine who gets campaign funding? Are Rs and Ds put on the same level playing field as Greens, Libertarians, Constitution Party, etc. candidates despite their overwhelming registration numbers compared to the rest? On the flip side, what threshold of support do 3rd parties have to reach in order to receive funding? I don't want the government in a position to determine who is a worthy candidate and therefore should receive government funding. For everyone screaming for a 3rd party option, government financing will only help to increase the influence of the 2 major parties.

Also, I don't trust the press pretty much across the board. The more restrictions that are placed on campaign financing (who can contribute, how much, who funds campaigns, etc.) only helps to limit information avenues and increases the influence of the press.

Cave Johnson
08-24-2010, 10:32 AM
Yes. Basically, politics and politicians are corrupted and compromised because they need to be in order to get access to the funds they need to be (re)elected. That's appears to me to be an inherently moronic system.

What he said.

I've always contended public funding of elections would require a constitutional amendment, and that's been driven home by Citizens United. So, basically it will never happen.

Iowanian
08-24-2010, 10:39 AM
I'd rather have term limits....1, 6 year term and you're done in that capacity.

Career politicians are as much the problem as the people funding them.

mlyonsd
08-24-2010, 11:17 AM
Yes. Basically, politics and politicians are corrupted and compromised because they need to be in order to get access to the funds they need to be (re)elected. That's appears to me to be an inherently moronic system.

I think if you were truly serious about controlling lobbying this wouldn't be much of an issue.

Unfortunately the dems were about as serious as addressing lobbying in the last election the same as republicans were serious about term limits back in 94.

Just political lip service.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 11:19 AM
What he said.
If politicians are corrupted by money, then it doesn't matter the source of the money. The process can still be corrupted. Govt money just means those with political power can say someone is not a viable or legitimate candidate. It is the worse of the two options.

Go back to the drawing table.

healthpellets
08-24-2010, 03:19 PM
What he said.

I've always contended public funding of elections would require a constitutional amendment, and that's been driven home by Citizens United. So, basically it will never happen.

yes, it would have to be done by amendment.