Publicly funded elections? Good idea? Or Bad Idea?


SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
Publicly funded elections.

Private interest groups can run their own ads explaining why they support a particular candidate, but cannot contribute directly to a candidate's actual campaign.

Seems like a good plan to me.
 

FreemanW

macrumors 6502
Sep 10, 2012
472
87
The Real Northern California
Publicly funded elections, no private money permitted or allowed.

PAC's . . . done, no more.

Private, anonymous money, outlawed, done. You support an issue, no funny names, you're right out in the open, marketing guru's go home.

Federal Election Commission, DONE. It's a junkyard guard dog that has gotten fat eating raw steak thrown its was by the burglars . . . . otherwise known as Democrats and Republicans.

No more insider trading by legislators. They get caught trading on stocks that they're influencing through regulation? It's the greybar hotel and throw the key away.

Lobbyists? What are those? They're done, not permitted on Federal Property or in any building where the work of the people is being done.

Revised tax code. A dollar is a dollar, whether it came at you on a pay stub or an earnings statement. Enough of this ******** largess for the cake-eating poodles sitting by their tennis court and olympic sized pool.

You want to create jobs? No more tax cuts for the wealthy, you make sure all of the masses that buy goods and services have money to do just that. That is what makes the "job creators" hire more people, to keep up with demand for product.

You keep the mortgage interest deduction for head of household on one residence. That is something everyone can benefit from.

Then the U.S. can get on with the program of joining the rest of the first world with things other modern countries enjoy, like a higher standard of living, more vacation time for a strengthened middle and working class, education and health care, cradle to grave; instead of spending more on military than the next 18 countries combined.
 
Last edited:

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,163
IOKWARDI
Fine, no "limiting of free speech", just impose a 40% tax on all moneys spent to campaign for any issue (including ads between elections, targeted at public support for some issue), the proceeds going to the general campaign fund.

Oh, and classify media content as advertising.
 

FreemanW

macrumors 6502
Sep 10, 2012
472
87
The Real Northern California
Because I have a right to give to the candidate or party that I wish to... I can speak with my money. I can purchase ads for the candidate that I prefer. No one has a right to tell me that I can't.
You have an abject comprehension failure.

What do you think Publicly Funded Elections means?

Here's a hint . . . . no private money to candidates.

You don't give money to a cop when he pulls you over for speeding. Do you know why?

If you want to spend your money and purchase advertising, fine, knock yourself out. But your name goes on the advert, telling the world that SD bought this ad in support of Homer's run for Congress.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Fine, no "limiting of free speech", just impose a 40% tax on all moneys spent to campaign for any issue (including ads between elections, targeted at public support for some issue), the proceeds going to the general campaign fund.

Oh, and classify media content as advertising.
So you want to TAX free speech?
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,163
IOKWARDI
So you want to TAX free speech?
Why not? We tax newspapers, and ammunition. You often have to pay for a permit to peaceably assemble and petition your government for redress of grievances.

"Free" speech does not mean "free, as in beer", it means free as in GPL.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Because I have a right to give to the candidate or party that I wish to... I can speak with my money. I can purchase ads for the candidate that I prefer. No one has a right to tell me that I can't.
Fair enough. Questions.

1: How is donating money free speech? Is it not just overriding people who don't have as much money as you?

2: Why should money be free speech? I can't find that in the bill of rights. Care to tell me where that is? Is lobbying just not legalized bribes?

3: Would you be willing to go on a public list, so the public knows who supports who?

Also:

In a publicly funded election, if no one can donate....

Would you not get the same voice as everyone else via your vote?

Are you more interested in gaming the system as super pacs and lobbyists due to overide the will of the informed voted who might not have the same cash to run attack ads?

Is that not ruining our democratic process? When money means you have more of a voice and choice than someone without money?

What is wrong with one vote per citizen? Would you perfer those with more incomes should just get more votes?

As such....

Someone making 15K a year gets one vote

And someone making 100K a year gets 15 votes?
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Because I have a right to give to the candidate or party that I wish to... I can speak with my money. I can purchase ads for the candidate that I prefer. No one has a right to tell me that I can't.
Yeah, and so can they. A large multinational corporation is obviously going to have considerably larger amounts of cash on hand to spend on their favored politician. You can start all the fundraisers and grassroots movements you want. In these media heavy days, you'll never be able to match a professionally run multimillion dollar campaign for airspace, advertisement, or special events. The end result will be that their free speech will be heard more often than your free speech, and thus be far more likely to get the votes.

Or to put it more bluntly, they can afford to voice their opinions. You can't.
 

The Doctor11

macrumors 603
Dec 15, 2013
5,907
1,291
New York
It's not really a good or bad idea. I wouldn't do it. I will do crowed funding for my favorite YouTubers. And I do.
 
Last edited:

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Because I have a right to give to the candidate or party that I wish to... I can speak with my money. I can purchase ads for the candidate that I prefer. No one has a right to tell me that I can't.
Which goes right along with his suggestion of it being a good idea.

You are the public.

Privately-held corporations and institutions are not.

BL.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
You make all campaign ads public service announcements and stations cannot charge for them. Since these are public servants running there should not be an issue. Everyone gets the same cap on donations or public funding. Lets call it a stipend. No attack ads allowed. Limit of 10 ads per campaign.

----------

Because I have a right to give to the candidate or party that I wish to... I can speak with my money. I can purchase ads for the candidate that I prefer. No one has a right to tell me that I can't.
Unless you are telling the person what they have to put in the ad you purchased it is not a limit on your free speech.
 

Happybunny

macrumors 68000
Sep 9, 2010
1,752
1,351
Publicly funded elections are the norm across the EU, it works and keeps the election campaign focused on policies and not personalties.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
I'm all for publicly financed elections. This raising and spending a BILLION DOLLARS to get elected President is obscene.

Do not agree with banning lobbyists as this is how the ignorant people we elect learn about issues. I would put strong limits on what lobbyists can do, not allow them to contribute to any campaign and make thew process completely open.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Fair enough. Questions.

1: How is donating money free speech? Is it not just overriding people who don't have as much money as you?

2: Why should money be free speech? I can't find that in the bill of rights. Care to tell me where that is? Is lobbying just not legalized bribes?

3: Would you be willing to go on a public list, so the public knows who supports who?

Also:

In a publicly funded election, if no one can donate....

Would you not get the same voice as everyone else via your vote?

Are you more interested in gaming the system as super pacs and lobbyists due to overide the will of the informed voted who might not have the same cash to run attack ads?

Is that not ruining our democratic process? When money means you have more of a voice and choice than someone without money?

What is wrong with one vote per citizen? Would you perfer those with more incomes should just get more votes?

As such....

Someone making 15K a year gets one vote

And someone making 100K a year gets 15 votes?
If I decide to support a PAC it is no one's business which PAC, I wish to contribute to. That is between me and them. We enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the USA. The SCOTUS has already ruled that spending money is a part of this.

Which goes right along with his suggestion of it being a good idea.

You are the public.

Privately-held corporations and institutions are not.

BL.
Sorry, but we decided that corporations were people when we decided to tax them like people and let them be sued like people.

You make all campaign ads public service announcements and stations cannot charge for them. Since these are public servants running there should not be an issue. Everyone gets the same cap on donations or public funding. Lets call it a stipend. No attack ads allowed. Limit of 10 ads per campaign.

----------

Unless you are telling the person what they have to put in the ad you purchased it is not a limit on your free speech.
So you want to dictate to the media that they have to run advertisements with no compensation? Are you next going to demand that restaurants give away their food? That NFL franchises give away tickets? These column inches in newspapers are valuable property. The air time on radio and television? Extremely valuable. Yet, you feel they should have to give it away. Then you want to limit what they say and how many times they say it?

---------------------------------------------------------

For decades the unions have been giving to Democrats and this wasn't a problem. What is really upsetting everyone now is that the corporations seem to want to write more checks to the Republicans.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
Yes.

I have always despised this "money is free speech" crap. That essentially says that rich people have more of it than the rest of us, which goes against the idea of it in the first place.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,054
16,542
The Misty Mountains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_elections#In_the_United_States

Pretty self explanation.

Would you support Public funded elections? And remove private money from elections?

I would.

Would you also outlaw lobbying?

I would as well.

What would you do?

I feel removing private money from elections would be a positive thing.
Removing as much private money from elections as possible would be good. Publicly funded elections with a limited active election cycle- yes.

By virtue of publicly funded elections:
Restrict political ads to within 4 months of an election.
Restrict/prevent PAC advertising.

Outlaw lobbying-yes.

No limiting free speech.
Individuals have the right to go make speeches wherever they want, but not flood the airwaves with their message by virtue of their money. This is undue influence in the democratic process and the specific reason why public financing of elections is proposed. Free speech is not carte blanche to subvert the process.

Along the lines of 1 person, 1vote, each person should get $1 to spend on their favorite political candidate. :)
 
Last edited:

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
If I decide to support a PAC it is no one's business which PAC, I wish to contribute to. That is between me and them. We enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the USA. The SCOTUS has already ruled that spending money is a part of this.



Sorry, but we decided that corporations were people when we decided to tax them like people and let them be sued like people.



So you want to dictate to the media that they have to run advertisements with no compensation? Are you next going to demand that restaurants give away their food? That NFL franchises give away tickets? These column inches in newspapers are valuable property. The air time on radio and television? Extremely valuable. Yet, you feel they should have to give it away. Then you want to limit what they say and how many times they say it?

---------------------------------------------------------

For decades the unions have been giving to Democrats and this wasn't a problem. What is really upsetting everyone now is that the corporations seem to want to write more checks to the Republicans.
Why should public servants running for public office have to raise 10 million dollars just to show a campaign ad? Free speech gives you the right to say things and not get arrested. It doesn't say anything about donating a **** ton of money to a politician.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,054
16,542
The Misty Mountains
If I decide to support a PAC it is no one's business which PAC, I wish to contribute to. That is between me and them. We enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the USA. The SCOTUS has already ruled that spending money is a part of this.



Sorry, but we decided that corporations were people when we decided to tax them like people and let them be sued like people.
Hard core conservative rationalization going on here. And SCOTUS is in the pockets of corporations so average citizens are in big trouble. And no, you are not sorry.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
Hard core conservative rationalization going on here. And SCOTUS is in the pockets of corporations so average citizens are in big trouble. And no, you are not sorry.
Agreed, SCOTUS was flat out wrong with that decision. And of course Congress won't change the law to fix it.