Should All Campaigns Be Funded with Public Funding?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bobber205, Jun 20, 2010.

  1. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #1
    Severally limit the amount third parties can spend on television ads.
    And all campaigns are run on a set amount of public money (probably alot more than it is now).

    Wouldn't this simple change solve so many of our problems? What am I missing? :p
     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    Yes. Any politician caught enriching themselves with their political power should be executed also.
     
  3. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #3
    I agree *cough* with Zombie. Levity in advertising funds is a necessity in this current political environment.
     
  4. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    All campaigns should be solely publicly funded.
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    I can't +1 this enough.
     
  6. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #6
    maybe not 100% publicly funded but MASSIVE and I mean MASSIVE campaign financing reform needs to be done. When the last election for president crossed 1 billion in money spent something is very clearly wrong.
    Our politicization do not care about what you have to say unless you are bribing them with money and call it campaign financing. It has turned to nothing more than bribery.
     
  7. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #7
    Yes

    But were going in the other direction :confused:
     
  8. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    In the UK the limit per party is £19 million, so probably £35 million or so was spent overall (or around $50 million). So adjusting for population gives $250 million ish for the whole election.

    Then again in the Democrat presidential primaries alone more than that was spent :eek:.
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    I also don't want to spent that much on campaigns, limit them to $1 million each and have all the regular debates. If the people believe so much in your political position they will spread the word for you. Im tired of seeing multi-million dollar tv campaigns.
     
  10. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #10
    I agree no more TV adds they are basically just used for baseless smearing, they contain no pertinent information.

    I say more debates waaay less adds.
     
  11. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #11
    no

    My tax dollars should not be going to pay for the political campaigns of people whose beliefs I find offensive or dangerous.

    And who would get funding? Only "acceptable" mainstream candidates? Any wingnut who says "give me some money"?? Who decides who would get money? For example; Orly Taitz, the "birther queen", ran for secretary of state here in california........I see no reason why my tax dollars should be paying for her campaign....or anybody else's campaign.

    Let them raise their own money
     
  12. bobber205 thread starter macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #12
    Make the money based on methods like how you get on a ballot nowadays. :p
     
  13. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #13
    so then anybody like Orly would get funds since she qualified to be on the ballot (fortunately she lost :p ).....that's exactly why I oppose public funding, or at least one reason why
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Yes it should. Private donations should be done away with. That way, we would get a better field of candidates.
     
  15. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #15
    I think candidates should be free to spend as much of their own and contributors money in whatever way they see fit to get their message out, no matter what it is. The government should have a very limited role to play here. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our way of life in this country. This freedom has already been eroded by existing laws governing campaign contributions, and it would be a shame to surpress it even more by setting hard limits on the amount of money that individuals can spend.
     
  16. bobber205 thread starter macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #16
    Should money control elections or should ideas?

    Good ideas != lots of money.

    Lots of money == success in many cases
     
  17. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #17
    I couldn't agree more. Most public servants these days get into politics to make money, not to be servants, and it needs to change. I don't have the answer, but there needs to be some sort of change.
     
  18. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #18
    Both money and ideas should be used to the extend desired by the candidates. I don't think it should be up to me or anyone else to decide what ideas they should be able to express or how much time, money, and resources they can spend in getting their ideas out to the public.
     
  19. bobber205 thread starter macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #19
    Why should individuals/groups with more money have more say? How can you even consider this to be an option? :eek:
     
  20. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #20
    Anyone that qualifies should be allowed to run no matter how much you might hate their views. Why should it be a rich mans club.
    Most of the rich people that run don't have good ideas but have a way to spend their way to power. I think the average Joe's of the world would do a better job running the country over some rich out of touch with reality billionaire.

    Money does not buy freedom of speech, it buys the ability to out talk your competition.
     
  21. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #21
    Should be change to public funded and the congress CAN NOT vote to increase the amount of funding they get. To increase the amount of funding they get it has to be put to a vote to the citizens who have to approve it.
     
  22. bobertoq macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    #22
    I concur.

    The first step is corporations shouldn't be able to donate to any political campaign.
     
  23. robotmonkey macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    #23
    NO. I don't wanna pay for that. Once again I am at odds with everyone else :eek:
     
  24. bobertoq macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    #24
    That's a good point. I like corrupt politicians.
     
  25. dsnort macrumors 68000

    dsnort

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Location:
    In persona non grata
    #25
    I think we should allow private funding, but all funds should go into a common pool to be divided equally among all contestants in that election. Less pandering for money, more original ideas. (Plus, it costs more to buy a candidate).
     

Share This Page