Why should America pay for campaigns?

Email Print posted by chrisandyasemin 02/28/2008 09:28:40 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Now that Obama is being grilled about his promise to use public funding, I am asking, why should ANYONE use public funding?  If half of America doesn't support that person, why should they pay for their campaign?

Now, I understand that it is place to seemingly make it fair for both sides involved in the presidential race, however these funds should not come out of taxes.  $85 million dollars/ candidate every 4 years starts to add up over time.  Now, don't get all fired up saying,"DO YOU WANT LOBBYISTS TO CONTROL THE CANDIDATE?"  HELL NO!  Looking at Obama's campaign, the American people are his lobbyists.  Now, take that choice away from the Americans, and we have our current tax system.  Although I do support Obama, it should be my choice if I want to give him(or McCain) my taxes for "his" campaign.  Now, if the people got to nominate the candidate, that would be a different story, but even that is left up to the "elite".  I am tired of having my taxes spent on bullshit wars, and bullshit campaigns.  I'm not dissin on Obama's campaign in particular, but the whole process has become a popularity contest.  If the American people would start doing more research on the candidates, then there wouldn't be any commercials saying that,"Obama is all talk, and no policy".  Systems like the electoral college, and forceful taxation have become outdated, and our government does not seem to have an end for them in sight.  We have electronic polling booths that, DON'T work correctly, and still use paper ballots.  There is obviously some terrible management going on in the process, but the Americans are being left out of decisions that technology has given us the chance to take part in.  After 2000, and 2004, there are about 120 million Americans that I would not personally trust with a decision, however i'm sure I can agree with all those people on one thing.  We don't want to pay for the opposition.

< Time to attack | Why McCain and I Should be Allowed to be President >

Poll

Is public funding still necessary?
A. Hell no! If Perot paid out of pocket, why can't everyone? 0%
B. Yes, it equalizes the campaign process 77%
C. The campaigns will never be equal as long as republicans keep getting caught in public bathrooms with Male Prostitutes after being the value vote... 44%

Votes: 9
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Why should America pay for campaigns? | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)
HELL YES we need public financing of elections (none / 1)
Why should the person who gets the most private donations (aka, the candidate who is likely to represent special interests the tend to have different interests than the average American) be the one most likely to win?

Same with some rich person who can fund his/her own campaign. Shouldn't anyone have a chance to run for office, regardless of the size of their bank account?  The obvious answer is yes.

There are requirements of course, like in states where for public funding you have to get a certain number of small donations (say $5) and signatures to be eligible.  It's not like any fool can get this done.

People should pay because it will improve the quality of candidates for ALL parties. And look, if my taxes go toward a republican candidate who I disagree with I can still pretty much guarantee that the candidate born of public funding would be (far) better and less corrupt than a traditional republican candidate.

And look, of course some of my tax dollars go toward things I don't like, that's just how it works. 

Finally, I agree that it's scary how much of America is uninformed and misinformed.  To that end, I think there's a better chance that publicly funded candidates would push for real improvements in funding and quality of valuable programs, including education (k-12 and post secondary).

And a lot of people are uninformed, misinformed and apathetic precisely *because* we have corrupt, special interest driven candidates.  Public funding could be a huge wake-up call that every vote and every dollar *from an individual* DOES count, and that people need to pay attention. 

Could people still be manipulated by the media?  Yes, of course.  We need to work on that.  But there again, how likely are we to see someone stand up to media monopolies and concentration (Clinton was the opposite with his awful Telecom Act of 1996), things that clearly degrade the quality and diversity of our media?  I'd say not likely at all these days, but possibly with a publicly funded candidate it'd be different.

by ihavenobias on 02/28/2008 10:27:35 AM EST

Very true! (none / 0)
I will definately agree with you that the concept of the public funded candidate is a great ideal, yet it still hasn't really worked yet.  Obama doesn't really need the public funding, because the public is already supporting him.  I guess what I'm getting at is the point that a candidate who inspires the people earns their support, rather than getting it automatically.  It is clear that because Obama recieves smaller donations and he has broken records with his fundraising, that AMERICANS support him.  It is not just private lobbyists.  He would not be setting any new standards if it were just a bunch of top end donations.  That's not new...When we get candidates like Ralph Nader as the independent front-runner, I just have to question how well that public money is actually being spent.  Maybe seeing the process run so terribly so many times has just made me question how well  public funding via taxes actually works.  Especiall y when we have the ability to nominate candidates on a mass scale now.  I definately think that if public funding is used, people should be able to vote on a candidate before the primaries.  There is no reason that this process cannot involve the public at every point now.  We have been too apathetic, and left the responsibilities to Congress, and the various commitees that vote on these nominations.  How can the DNC be democratic if they don't check up with their base first???  Rant aside, I still see the ideologies behind public funding, I just have not seen it work yet. 

by chrisandyasemin on 02/28/2008 10:37:05 AM EST

If we move to full public funding (none / 0)
We would/should shorten the campaign season signifcantly (common in most other countries). Part of the reason they need to raise so much money is that they start the campaign 10 years ahead of time.

Besides which, most people don't pay attention until the last minute anyway.

by ihavenobias on 02/28/2008 10:46:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
TRUEDAT! (none / 0)

by chrisandyasemin on 02/28/2008 10:49:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Just to clarify about pre-primary votes (none / 0)
This is the same concept as the public signatures, just electronic.  I know there are lots of volunteers in the process, and actual money is not necessarily spent on people, but the time spent on taking signatures could be put to better use.  The internet does not limit access because of class either, as anyone can get access in a public library.

by chrisandyasemin on 02/28/2008 10:48:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Flat Rate for All (none / 1)
If any sort of public financing is gonna take place, it needs to be a flat fee - one time amount that the campaigns will have to use wisely - Say 50 Million tops - AND THATS IT!!! I hate the idea of spending taxpayer money on these crooks, but as ihavenobias points out, we spend taxpayer money on all kinds of shit we hate...

All private financing should be illegal - no corporate or private citizen monies... ever. Now is this realistic - no, but if there is to be public financing, it has to be strictly public! If they run out, OH WELL they should have thought about that!!!

I dont think its ever gonna happen, but it is something to dream about...

by bobo1 on 02/28/2008 10:59:16 AM EST

I believe it was in 1907(?) (none / 0)
that *Republican* Teddy Roosevelt put into law that a corporation could not give a DOLLAR to any politician for any reason.

PS---I don't want to take this thread off topic, but as I commented recently, it's incredible to think how kick-ass this Republican president was, and how he would not only be viewed as a flaming liberal by today's standards, but that his views on money in politics and corporations (and monopolies and excessive influence, etc.) pretty much directly contradicted those of conservative icon Ronald Reagan.

by ihavenobias on 02/28/2008 11:15:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
They are flip floppers! (none / 0)
The republicans can't settle on an identity...one minute they hate gays, the next minute they're smoking meth cheating on their "wife" with a male prostitute, who is also their drug dealer.  They seem to have forgotten about the "republic" part of their name, and also the freedom part of "liberal".  Since when has the "land of the free" not support "liberals"(fighte rs for freedom).  It is just another sign that the Republicans are fighting against America's freedom. 

Back to the public funding, I think every American should be able to decide where at least half of their taxes go.  I still believe that Americans without kids will put money towards education before war.  I just think that the internet has outrun our political system, and the American people need to prod them to play catch up.  Why shouldn't you be able to say where your money goes?  Honestly, would anyone NOT put money towards paving streets?  Certain things like that wouldn't even need to be questioned because 95% would vote yes anyways.  When you get into issues like war funding, obviously a grey area, as it hurts the troops to take away funding, but takes away taxpayers ability to protest monetarily.  I still believe in my heart that we are committing murders by paying for war, even though we don't want to admit it to ourselves.  That's why it gets so grey...this is a big issue, and that's part of the reason I am questioning the government's DISUSE of the internet regarding America's opinions on public issues.  Hackers are a problem, yes, but so is election fraud, and apparently punch cards.  Voting on propositions is not the same because you get legal jargon in description of the props, so unless you have a lawyer, or some legal training, that language can be very misleading.   

by chrisandyasemin on 02/28/2008 11:26:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Public financing is OK (none / 0)
but, I think that they should still allow private citizen contributions of up to $100. It is wrong to take away from the public the ability to give to a candidate if they want to. Limiting it to a $100 max, individual or company, tax deductible contribution would be fair if coupled with public financing.

by mijoh on 02/28/2008 03:17:31 PM EST

Sounds reasonable to me (none / 0)
Because of the low cap.

by ihavenobias on 02/28/2008 03:23:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As long as one can give a single penny... (none / 1)
then a "public financing" system wont work. Just as they do now with this $2300 limit there is.

You dont think these corporations and slimebuckets wont manipulate the system to where it is the same old mess it is now?

I know this isnt realistic to say no private contributions, but we will never be able to curb thhe influence until the money is removed from the equation, and that will NEVER happen...

Its time for the Revolution...

by bobo1 on 02/28/2008 03:37:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We ALREADY pay (none / 0)
The rich people and corporations recoup almost almost $1,000 for every dollar donated. They aren't paying for campaigns; they're paying for the earmarks that indentured politicians use to reward contributors.

Eliminate corporate financing, and the bribery ends.  So I'd rather pay $250 million to a campaign I oppose than that amount times a thousand for bridges to nowhere, welfare to Exxon and all the rest.

It's just cheaper in the long run.

by Dogger on 02/28/2008 04:29:58 PM EST

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)
 Display: