With campaigns costing millions of dollars, it's not surprising that candidates are beholden to the special interests and corporate PACs that finance their campaigns. Do you think campaigns should be publicly funded, and, if so, how would the funds be allocated?
Should campaigns be publicly funded? 
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
I would love to see campaigns be publicly funded. As far as I can tell, it seems to be working well in the few states that have gone that route so far.
Do we have some people here at Unity who are familiar with the mechanisms being used in those states?
I'd like to see all contributions go into one fund, and be evenly divided among the candidates. That would allow for a leveling of the field, so to speak, and give all arguments an equal chance to be heard.
I could not agree with you more. The only way to get our country back is to get the special intrests out of the process and publicly financed elections are the best solutuion so far.
We must have public funding. Read the latest James Carville book to get a plan that seems workable to me. Basically, no sitting elected official is allowed to raise any money from any source. Federal funding will give him 80% of whatever money his opponents raise. There's more to it, but it essentially makes lobbyists obsolete as it is unlawful for an elected official to take anything from them. It also means legislators have no excuse not to work a full week, since fund-raisers are now illegal.
I know that this will fall on deaf ears but I cannot believe that there are ANY issues other than 'campaign finance reform' to select as the most important issue, head and shoulders above all others. I don't mean to sound pompous or a 'know it all' but even suggesting other issues is a display of an incredible amount of naïvetè as to the workings (or lack of workings) of our political system. Church & State, Congressional Earmarks in Federal Spending, Drug Policy, Election Reform, Lobbyist Influence in Washington,Tax Reform, Term Limits, Trade Reform, Upholding the Constitution are ALL important but none of them is nearly as important as campaign financing reform. NONE! Without the getting big money (special interest groups, lobbyist 'donations', etc.) out of campaigns we'll NEVER be able to rationally, reasonably, fairly deal with ANY of the other listed issues. All legislation is and will be suspect; either written largely by special interests or laden with hidden earmarks of dubious value to the country at large. Money is the root of all evil in our politics and is THE SINGLE threat to the survival of our democracy. Unfortunately, with the Supreme Court equating money to 'free speech' this will be impossible to change our corrupt (yes, that is the word) system of campaigning without the passage of an amendment to the Constitution. Thanks for allowing me my rant as I have no practical solution.
I could not imagine a more effective goal than campaign finance reform. It is indisputable that money drives all politics in Washington. That money is what is provided by well-heeled industries and special interests that have no sense of social responsibility beyond their bottom line. Public funding of political campaigns would be far cheaper for everyone. The much smaller amount of money, relatively speaking, is the best investment the American people could make in the stewardship of a true republic. If we had publicly funded political campaigns, reasoned and effective dialogue (between the voter and their representative) on all the truly important issues would be acheived.
In the process of electioneering, money matters because it costs so much to buy attention. Print, radio, TV - it all costs. Traveling around the country pressing the flesh takes money. Feeding the entourage, bumper stickers, pins -- it all costs.
So. Let's change that.
Any candidate in the country can reach 73% of adult Americans with a web page. Many of you know that the cost of a decent provider is probably less than 2 lattes a month. Even allowing for high bandwidth costs, you can find really good dedicated servers for less than $200 a month. That's $2400 a year. Add the price of a webmaster and some decent design work -- say $60K a year for 4 years -- and you're looking at a 4 year campaign budget of less than $300K.
Compare that to the estimated $2B that went into the 2024 presidential election advertising.
You can't do it ALL online, of course, but if the candidate doesn't have to spend multiple millions of dollars on advertising, that leaves a lot of cash left over for getting out and meeting people. A luxury coach costs between $1000-$3000 a day and is a great way of covering local areas. Make it $5K/day and one could probably tour non-stop for up to 10 days and that will cover a LOT of America. While that's $50,000, it's STILL a LOT less than a million.
Unity08 is changing the paradigm and we have the potential to make campaign finance reform irrelevant.
The essential problem with campaign finance reform is that it conflicts with freedom of speech. A group of people have every right to contribute to a combined effort to have their opinion heard. Typically though, political speech is financed by entities which were formed for a different purpose altogether, such as a union or corporation. Rarely is such an entity's contribution to a candidate or message supported by its entire membership.
Suppose we prohibit non-political organizations from contributing to candidates/political speech alogether. An organization which wishes to make its collective opinion known would have to establish an independent political entity, to which the members could voluntarily contribute.
Been there .. done that! Political entities to which the members could voluntarily contribute are call PAC's .. and that is one of the reasons that we are in the mess today. How about we make it simple: Only individuals can make political contributions .. NO unions, No corporations, No PAC's, no non-profits, no universities.. NO organizations whatsoever.. only individuals.
Mmm. There is the argument that freedom of spending equals freedom of speech. I'm not so sure that's really defensible.
If I have the money to own the only TV station and newspaper in town, and I choose to not publish anything that I disagree with, does that make me right? Does my financial capability give me the _right_ to suppress others?
(That's not to say it doesn't happen, mind you; my question is to the morality of the practice, not the existence of the practice.)
And in this country, which is uniquely founded upon _ideas_, rather than on historical tribal associations (so to speak,) is it not supremely important that ALL ideas get a thorough airing? How are we to judge those ideas, and find the best ones, if we don't have equal access to them, so they can be examined?
This is why I would like to see all political contributions go into a common fund, equally distributed among the candidates. I think it would have several salutary effects:
1. Our reps could stop their constant fund-raising for their next campaign, and actually take time to do their jobs.
2. The influence-buyers would be discouraged, as their dollars would have no more value than any other.
3. We _might_ even get campaigns that were more informative, as candidates would know that they all had the same amount to spend, and had to make better decisions about what to spend it on.
4. Finally, I would also support a policy of individual contributions only. The PAC,corporate, union, and other organizational contributions do nothing but muddy the waters, I think, and lead inevitably to corruption.
Public funding will only push money into the major parties’ war chests.
Campaign finance reform does not being from ethic rules or legal changes. It begins with a single candidate or party saying that he or she will not accept money from anyone other than individuals. They may not raise allot of money, but I would hope they raise allot of standards
On the topic of campaign money and free speech:
An individual should not be limited in his support for the candidate of his choice. But this should not extend to a CEO spending other people’s money (shareholder’s) on campaigns. A CEO should be unlimited in his personal support for a candidate. But a CEO, union leader etc, should not be able to spend other people’s money on campaigns.
First, as Scully says, finance reform will always begin with someone making a decision, and that decision leading to action that will raise the ethical standards.
And I would also agree that anyone can support their candidate, but I question whether that support is purely a matter of writing checks. If you are that devoted to a campaign, then I would think you'd want to be involved in other ways...and there's certainly no suggestion of limiting how many doors you can knock on, or editorials you can write, or people you can talk to, or any of the myriad other things that go into supporting a candidate.
Mmm. Perhaps limiting the idea of 'supporting' to equal 'cash' is part of the root problem. I'll have to think on it more. Comments, y'all?
Everyone that has signed up at Unity 08, and even those just curious, needs to write to all of the major news outlets to ask that they report on our efforts. If we flood ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX and MSNBC with emails asking them to report on Unity 08, they just may do so. We should ask that they have Hamilton Jordan, Jerry Rafshoon, Doug Baily and Angus King as guests on their programs so that they can explain the philosophy behind the effort. Yes, people are upset about the current political environment. But most have no idea as to how they can help bring about change. So far, Unity 08 seems to be the best way to bring people together to affect change. We need to advertise!
Didn't Arizona do this? What does it cost? Voters are suckers for something that costs nothing.
Clearly slanted in some way, but PublicCampaign.org provides this myth vs. fact analysis: http://www.publicampaign.org/publications/factsheets/myth_vs_fact.htm
(also talks some about AZ)
The problem with election reform is that people have a right to free speech, unfortunately that means that any idiot can buy time on TV and make any false statement they want. I would like to see the 527 groups have some kind of regulation but in the frame of the first amendment it's hard to for me to say what the fix is.
I think that the news media needs to take a MORE ACTIVE role during election season. All too often during major elections the news organizations of will play clips of a candidate giving blatantly false information with no mention of errors. Our news is so sensitive to accusations of being biased and beating the compitition to the story they do not even bother checking facts from a candidate or their own stories.
There are a number of good ideas concerning public financing of political campaigns. I don't have time to list them this morning, but if you're really interested you can find them with a google search. Until we take the money out, you'll have nothing but crooks in. Keep your stick on the ice, we're all in this together (Red Green Show).
Public financing won't do any good unless it is accompanied by spending limits. I think limiting the amount people spend on political speech is a very bad idea (in addition to being at odds with the first amendment).
That might be called the "negative" case against public financing, but I think it also suffers from a very weak positive case. It seems to me there are only two possible reasons to worry about campaign finance reform (CFR). One is that you might think the need to raise money keeps good people from running; the other is that the need to raise money makes good people too susceptible to special interest influence after they're elected. Both of these things are undoubtedly true, but I think CFR is unlikely to help.
With respect to problem number one, if we don't use fundraising ability as a de facto prerequisite for electoral office, what will we use? There has to be some rule about who gets the money and who doesn't. Who will create, amend, and generally administer those rules? Incumbents. Whom will the rules favor? Incumbents. Right now, rich people have more power than poor people (it has been ever thus), but at least they are PRIVATE people, and large numbers of people with less money can overcome the views of a privileged few without having to change any laws. Don't make incumbents the gatekeepers.
With respect to problem number two, the weakness of CFR is that there are just too many ways OTHER than campaign contributions in which special interests can influence their representatives. Even if we leave out junkets and such, the ego problem is endemic and probably sufficient. Special interests who can offer "public interest" awards, formal endorsements, publicity, etc. will still be able to dangle carrots in front of elected officials that no citizen or group of citizens can match. Arguably, these become even more important if the financial playing field is leveled.
Personally, I'm not that strongly against CFR; I think it is mostly a big waste of time that would do slightly more harm than good. And it would distract us from more effective ways of eliminating special interest influence, like term limits.
public campaign finance is an idea that surfaces about every other year and each time rational minds bring people to their senses. It's a BAD idea, doesn't have public support, and convention wisdom indicates it would only make the problem worse. Think about it .. why would you (or I) want to use taxpayers moneys (yours and mine) to finance every sleezebag that had an inflated ego. It only brings out the worse of candidates.
How can campaignes be financed without creating more power for big special interest than for the voter?
The voter will be impowered when all funds applied to an elective office must be raise only in the jurisdiction of that office. No other restriction and no federal program beyond enforcement would be needed.
Won't work. Money is too fluid. Its not difficult for organizations like Emilies list, or NOW, or Unions to funnel money directly front organizations in the district where they are represented from the home offices.
We have paper trails on money where we deem it important. As with taxes, enforcement can not be complete but it can have a broad effective range. Enough to elevate voter value substantially.
I had never heard anyone suggest that contributions come only from within the jurisdiction of the office in question. That seems to me to be an idea with merit. Not too much help with the senate, and even less with the presidency, but that ought to have real teeth for house campaigns.
Clearly the question about public financing is a daunting one. How about in 2024 though? My question for you is what role should 527s play in 2024? Should they be regulated differently in order to insure that wealthy candidates dont automatically have a leg up? If so, how?
An interesting book for anyone interested:
http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cf/cf_hp.htm
Absolutely opposed to the public funding of campaigns. Candidates and political movements should raise their own funds.
The only restrictions needed are that (1) Donors must be US Citizens - and no funneling of funds from forign interests (2) Full disclosure of where funding comes from.
There should be no restriction on a persons ability to donate money to a political movement which then puts that money into campaigns in support of their cause.
Any attempt at campaign finance reform has only created new problems and restricted political activity.
I don't understand your bias against the wealthy. Are they not fit for office, have no financial need to be corrupt, well educated, socialy acceptable? If the voters, voted on issues, a candidates financial background should not make a difference.
Well said. Your absolutely on the mark.
Here is a link to the information some of you have asked about.
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1805299
There are seven states and two cities currently operating under clean elections laws. They mention a constitutional way to obtain spending limits as well.
I will be keeping my eye on this, and possibly getting involved.
Founders, what about the possibility of teaming up with Common Cause?
-Keely
I've been away for four days, and I'm quite interested to find that more or less the same thing seems to have happened on the various posts that I was following. Specifically, I see the discussion veering off in directions suggested by advocates who are frequently articulate and invariably zealous, but who are plainly focused on one or more particular policy outcomes rather than any structural or procedural reform.
Maybe there are particular policy outcomes that would command broad public support (and therefore be entitled to be part of a "Unity" platform), yet are somehow neglected by Republicans and Democrats alike. Maybe, but frankly I doubt it. Let me explain why, and then explain what I think the consequences are for Unity08.
Like the vast majority of people who post here, I am appalled by the level of our political discourse, partly because it's so uncivil and partly because it's so dumbed-down. (I suspect those problems are related.) And also like many who post here, I believe one can characterize our modern political discourse as overly polarized, etc. That conception of the current state of affairs may lead one to suspect that change must come from the center, and that "unity" therefore lies in centrism.
This is where I must differ from many who post here, because I believe that partisan polarization is only half of the story. The other half, at least as important, is that no matter how much the two major parties disagree about particular policy outcomes, they share a bedrock commitment to perpetuating the power of incumbency.
You see it in the way they draw congressional districts, for example. Yes, where Republicans are in charge, they will try to maximize Republican seats, but they will also create very safe seats for Democrats as well.
You see it in their attitudes toward earmarking and other techniques for steering pork barrel spending to their districts. Yes, Republicans make out better than Democrats in the current Congress, but plenty of pork flows everywhere and the consensus in favor of pork transcends party divisions.
You see it in the cynical way the Republicans have treated the term limits issue since 1994. When they were in the minority, they included term limits in the Contract with America. When they became the majority party, they lost interest. Why? Because they were converted to new faith in the power of perpetual incumbency.
You see it in the tax laws. In the early years of the Clinton presidency, Republicans criticized (and even derided) all the gimmicky social engineering that the Democrats proposed to accomplish with the tax code. There is now bipartisan consensus among our elected officials that it is entirely proper for the government to make the amount of tax someone pays dependent upon whether the taxpayer earns his living this way or that way, spends his money on X or Y, and so forth. And both parties are addicted to the campaign contributions that these little tax favors produce so reliably.
You see it in ballot access laws. Whichever party is in charge in your state, it's a very good bet that both major parties enjoy HUGE advantages in terms of how easy it is to get a candidate on the ballot. I looked it up in Maryland one time and it was ridiculous how many signatures an independent candidate had to collect -- a requirement that did not apply to candidates nominated by the Republican or Democratic parties.
We have, therefore, a political landscape in which the two major parties fight each other tooth and nail on almost everything EXCEPT the extent to which elected officials should be insulated from political accountability.
Now, why does all this incumbent protection occur year in and year out for many years on end, at both state and federal levels? Hypothesis A is that this all occurs because a majority of citizens approve of it. If that's true, then not only is there no future for Unity08, there is no need for Unity08. If Hypothesis A is right, then people like myself may be unhappy with the result, but that's life in a democracy (when you're in the minority).
Hypothesis B, though, is that all this incumbent protection occurs because for some reason the will of the majority is being systematically frustrated. Maybe it's voter apathy and low turnout rates. Maybe it's that the game has actually been rigged in certain ways, as my comments about ballot access and redistricting suggested. If that's the case, then there is both a need for Unity08 and a future for Unity08, both as a means of educating and inspiring voters and as a means of spearheading a program of specific structural reforms that put the self back in self-government.
As my comments so far have suggested, you can put me down for Hypothesis B. And for that reason, I have to say that when I see on the blogs or the Shoutbox extended discussions of monetary policy, health care, economic competitiveness, etc., I am filled with despair. I simply do not believe that there are more than 100 people nationwide who think any important consequence flows from the way Ben Franklin used money. I do not believe that the RNC and DNC live in fear that a popular movement may coalesce around the goal of reinvigorating our manufacturing base (which they too will say they support).
In my view, if Unity08 is to have any impact -- particularly as a "movement" rather than a third party -- it must focus on STRUCTURAL, PROCEDURAL REFORMS that will make our elected officials more accountable to us. My list would be (1) Redistricting reform; (2) term limits; (3) fundamental tax reform; and (4) a renewed emphasis on solving state and local problems at the state and local levels instead of pushing everything to Washington. I understand that some people disagree with some or all of these on the merits, and that's fine, but I list them here to illustrate what I mean by a structural or procedural issue. Some have raised the question of voting systems like Condorcet or instant runoff voting, and while I don't know much about them this would obviously also be a structural issue rather than a particular policy outcome. Some people have advocated campaign finance reforms, and while I don't support such measures that is another sort of structural or procedural reform that could conceivably make Unity08 vital and relevant to the national debate.
But stem cells? The war in Iraq? Another installment in the perennial tug-of-war between haves and have-nots? These issues are terribly, terribly important and I fully understand the zeal with which people advance them here. Indeed, hardly anything gets me going like a discussion of Iraq, civil liberties, and the "war on terror" generally, so really, I do understand how people get hooked on particular policy questions. But as I read these threads and see them veering toward disunity, balkanization, obscurity, or worse, I can't help but feel that we have to refocus on the system if we want anything good to come of Unity08.
Can we, as a step toward consensus on a platform, achieve some sort of consensus that we should focus on structural, procedural reforms?
I couldn't agree more. When you look back at the threads, you will see that there are some that kept trying to keep the focus on structural and procedural change, but maybe didn't know quite how to verbalize it.
DWB has brought up this issue as well (or at least I think that is where they were going) in the thread on Core Issues. Unfortunately, the focus was diverted and become more of an "issue" thread again.
MGrannis you need to come on over to Jennifer's forum and join the conversation.
-Keely
Face it folks the biggest change in politics will be the weakness money has to influence because of technology... they can discuss it all they want but it's a 500 foot wave of the people that will moe down anyone who even brings the subject up... so for maximum impact I suggest this party treat campaign contributions like gifts from Satan himself! For those like Howard Dean who sell out will never be forgived... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
"Jennifer's forum" (as Keely called it) is the Unity Supporters Forum over at UnitySupporters.Com.
Keely cross posted mgrannis's rather long post over there (with attribution) because it relates to a thread we have over there on the implications of ignoring the "polarizing issues" that so many people feel so strongly about.
Sorry to intrude into the discussion about finance reform, but here in the Shoutbox there's not really a better place for this sort of thing. And now back to your regularly scheduled policy discussion :-)
-Jennifer
The real question is why do we spend so much money getting people elected to public office? The answer is because we want other people to pay for the things we want. That is a hard sell. Therefore, we spend a lot of money trying to sell things which the people do not want!
We have the technology to greatly reduce the cost of educating the public on the party and candidate stand on issues - the web. But, if people are totally open on their position on all the issues, they will not get elected!
What we really need is a change to the rules of the game. If the people who benefit from a government service are required to actually pay for the service then they can make rational decisions on how much of any given service they really want.
So, we need to simplify the tax code. Each government service needs to be funded by a specific tax paid only by the people who benefit from that service. Then people can run on the platform of increasing or reducing specific services. They can post their specific ideas on the priorities for government services or of ways of getting business to provide the service and the people can make an informed decision by checking the web sites and providing feedback to the parties and candidates.
All campaigns should be tax-payer financed. Campaigns should be structured to force candidates to explain their positions and results produced, or intended results, with feasibility analysis. All voting districts should be set by a Neutral commission and be neutral in regards to prividing an advantage for a party affiliation.
Some public funding might be nice, but it might not be desireable to ban all private funding.
There are many interest groups other than just groups promoting the interests of corporations so they can make more money. There are non-profit political groups that raise money to campaign to get certain policies passed, because they believe those policies are right for America, and not so they can get money.
I think private funding should be allowed, but every candidate should have to publish where they are getting there funds from. If people know a candidate gets most of his funds from big business they might be less likely to vote for him than a candidate getting his funds from non-profit political groups.
We need to consider the impact of public financing on third parties. If there was public financing they couldn't just give the funding to everyone who wants to run for office.
So what would we do? Ban all third parties from public financing? It's hard enough as it is for third parties. Maybe if there was some threshhold to pass to get public financing it would be fair.
RESPONSE TO: Anonymous on July 4, 2024 - 7:55pm
Wow anonymous, In your limited mind, private contributions are corrupt and "non-profit political groups that raise money to campaign to get certain policies passed, because they believe those policies are right for America, and not so they can get money".. Again wow.
OK, why do you suppose the two top contributors to Kerry's campaign were the University of California at$627,225 and Harvard University at $360,059. It was for the goodness of america.. right.. or just maybe it was for grants and contracts.. oh bannish the thought.. how evil of me.
Until the American people have it rough, the majority will not care.
As mgrannis and a few others alluded to, the issue is involvement by the people. Only the people control who is in and who is out. The internet can be the equalizer, or any other format to get the word out that is not controlled by a certain interest. But you have to be involved! Apathy is the real problem.
I just want to know who gives who money. And that list should be a legal document given to the proper government level. This can be posted cheaply (As was pointed out earlier), and I can follow the voting trends. Or check if someone else's opinion on a trend is correct. But the info should be easily found, clear, and concise.
Think about it, if you have a favorite candidate, does it matter who else has a commercial? Or how much air time it gets? I believe most people just ignore all of that.
Right now America is still prosperous. Until the people feel the pinch, they will continue to not care. Unless enough voices can raise the alarm about the issues that are coming, then nothing will matter until things get really bad. It's not the candidates or the way they are elected, it's the civic minded sheeple that go vote.
No revolution was ever started by fat people.
Political campaigns pre-date the mass media. We don't NEED advertising to elect someone. But I think we do need at least the equivalent of the old revolutionary pamphlets.
I'd be happy if people were restricted to passive websites, paper flyers, and audio/video debates. Bring back the old "public service programming hours" requirement for television stations. The nightly news used to be a lot more worthwhile when those rules were in effect, anyway.
Recent opinion about running for public office point out a major problem with current politics: the over use of money. Ideas, integrity and the desire to serve the public good should become a higher priority in the process.
To that end, I suggest the following changes. The amount of money spent to support a candidate should be strictly limited. We have technology to make the process of educating the voters much more efficient and less costly. The government should fund a web site for each candidate meeting the requirements to run for office to post their platform and arguments for their candidacy. The government's voter information web page should have a link to each candidate's web site.
Several public debates should be funded by government for all valid candidates during the course of the campaign period. The government should fund limited get out the vote advertisements to publicize the elections, mention all candidates' names and refer the voters to the voter information web site.
Non government paid advertisements for the elections, issues or candidates should be illegal. Newspapers would inform the voters by reporting on the debates and the issues as is the current case.
Then candidates would not be limited to the wealthy or those having obligations to the wealthy.
Response to: What if
Edmond on July 6, 2024 - 11:06am
Free speech and the natural flow of free market thought should not and must not be abridged by any means. And that is what your proposing. Do so at your peril. Campaign finance is not the problem. Ignorant voters are. The solution is to remove media bias, cheap give away gimmicks, sound bytes, and the grip that the 2 parties have on presidental debates.
SMH,
I hear what you say about free speech and I agree.
However, I believe that Campaign finance is a serious problem. It gives great advantage to those with money. I do not equate free speech to paid speech.
We already make laws controlling the use of TV advertisements. At the very least, we could require all valid candidates have the same dollar value of paid speech.
I propose using the web to educate the voters and promote the candidates, parties and positions.
The days of funded political campaigns, media control, and bad mouthing others is nearly over... This will be the last election done in this way as those who campaign using these traditional tactics will learn this fact as they lose any election campaigned in this way. The hitech generation is coming of age and we see existing leadership and propoganda control for what it is (old and outdated politics). It is a thing of the past to elect people to public office who are willing to sell out their own country. People who don't seek reform but spew lies and hatred for special interest money to finance their fraudulant campaign, legislative treason, and propoganda control to prevent third party participation... My generation will not support anyone who stands for these "old school" political tactics, as conventional ways of campaigning will work against the old politicians, driving those registered with and propping up the two headed capitalist party to exodus the two parties and join the independent movement that will unite America with a cabinet of enviornmentalists, capitalists, isolationists, expansionists, union represenatives, progressives! Unlike both existing capitalist parties who only respect their own parties views and reject the views of others! www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
It is an odious and wretched idea to have the government tax its citizens to give money to causes and candidates that they do NOT SUPPORT. And whatever party opposes this idea will win to your detriment.
The solution is to provide free air-time which you don't have to tax from the People in the first place.
It is not, as one poster put it, "an odious and wretched idea to have the government tax its citizens to give money to causes and candidates that they do NOT SUPPORT."
It is the only way for the best ideas to come to the fore. Only when all candidates are put on truly equal funding footing (allowing ONLY public funding) will be be able to elect candidates that match the public will.
I'm happy to support candidates with opposing ideas because I think that the candidates that share my ideals can win out on their merits.
Then you can pay my share too, since I am NOT happy to support candidates I oppose.
Response to:Public funding is the only way
otherguy on July 7, 2024 - 12:48pm
Otherguy,
What your suggesting is enveloping elections in government controls. The same government controls that destroyed our education systems, reduced our collective wealth by bogus budgeting processes, that gerrymeanders our voting districts, and gave away our future security. Now, you want someone else to fund ideas and candidates that cant get a legitimate foothold in the real world. Otherguy, you think like a girlyguy.
it's cost of campaigns that is the problem, a fact that redistributing wealth ONE MORE TIME will only excascerbate.
Remember who will always control this new form of patronage: the politicians. Sure laws can be made to deal with it, but then again, these laws can be changed. And usually to favor the incumbent class.
America can be VERY reform-minded when the time comes, but you will find that accross the political spectrum people are very protective of the two-cents they have to give to the political system. They don't even check-off the Presidential Fund box on their tax return.
Many here acclaim moderation as an ideal. Others nominate candidates who they feel are centrists. Both could not be more wrong if their objective is to restore our government to its founding principles. Words like "moderation" and "centrists" denote either political cowardice, cunning, or seduction. Anything moderately good, is never as good as it could be. Moderation in principle is aways a species of vice.
Based on your analysis / conclusion why are you interested in Unity08 which by its very nature has the goal of being centrist?
vry,
RET