Why should America pay for campaigns? | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)
We definately pay already! (none / 0)
I understand that part, but that's also influenced by the sheer number of corrupt politicians that are already involved in the political process.  If those people weren't corrupt in the first place, the money they received wouldn't make a difference.  I believe that money has a role in the corruption, but putting all the blame on the money leaves out the free will of a candidate to go against his lobbyists.  Obama could take a million dollars from Exxon, and still not enact their policies because he doesn't believe in them.  If he acted on Exxon's behalf, he would be corrupt regardless of his beliefs.  I also think that pure public funding does not eliminate corrupt politicians.  There are other ways for lobbyists to gain favor from candidates besides campaign donations.  Look at McCain, he'll take a young blond instead of loot.  What I'm trying to say is that Americans should be able to decide where their money goes.  Public finance of campaigns is one of those choices that is not a choice for the American people, but for the candidates.

by chrisandyasemin on 02/28/2008 05:07:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's more than money (none / 1)

We also need a stronger code of conduct, similar to that judges are required to obey.  We still have corrupt judges, but the rules permit us a process for removal. 

If a judge decided a case involving a girlfriend, a major contributor, a close friend or a family member, he or she would be disciplined or removed. When someone in Congress does that, it's a day ending in the letter "y".

A comprehensive approach would involve public financing without caps, restricting lobbying to open public venues, a ban on gifts or favors and rules requiring recusal for obvious conflicts of interest.

by Dogger on 02/28/2008 11:45:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Why should America pay for campaigns? | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)