Story Comments
Posted by: walden3 1 year, 7 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
redLineRunner1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It would never happen, but I think there needs to either be one "general pool" or one pool per party, and every donation goes into that pool. Then, the pool is evenly divided among the candidates when they run. That way everyone gets a fair shot and money doesnt 'buy' the office. Of course, this would have to be accompanied by close tracking on how the funds are used, making sure no one makes off with funds (if they were not serious candidates), etc.
To me this would be much more "for the people, by the people".
Reply -
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know. I agree with full disclosure, but I'm not sure the populace can make use of any additional information.
Maybe stop contributions from all businesses and organizations.
Maybe have completely public financing.
Maybe require broadcasters to provide equal time to candidates that show a certain amount of public support.
Maybe prohibit special interest groups from running ads.
Maybe limit lobbyists somehow.
Maybe stop the 527s.
Maybe limit contributions to $1,000 or $2,000 or whatever.
Maybe not allow bundling of contributions.
There has to be some way to let the average person participate and contribute, but prevent special interests from running the show.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
oh yeah, THAT wouldn't lead to any corruption, but a totally level playing field as the party bosses got to decide who was worthy to receive funds and who was not.
That's the problem with a "single payor" political system -- who decides? Unfortunately, I think things would end up even more corrupt than they are now, with only insiders having a prayer of winning.
Something should change, though. It makes no sense whatsoever for anyone to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to secure a job that pays $250K per year. Obviously, to spend that kind of money, you have to believe you're going to get more out of it than you're putting in.
Reply-
-
Neutral
redLineRunner1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But my point is - there is no decision. Everyone who runs get an equal share of they pie.
Plus, I didnt say "no donation" - donations are accepted, but they go into the "common fund". Sure, that means that special interest can still donate, but they cant really say "I donated X just to you, so you owe me."
Obviously, Im not an expert in politics or finanace, and I dont claim I know the perfect solution, but it seems to be that if its kept equal across the boards, then we would be better off than we are now.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
if "everyone who runs get an equal share of the pie", then no one would be likely to get enough to do anything with, because anyone who had the slightest hankering to run for something could throw their hat in. We would be giving a Chris Dodd (never got more than 1.5% of the vote in the likely case that you never even heard of him) the same financing as Hilary and Obama? If it costs nothing to run, people would run on a whim.
But I agree that the system with its two year campaign and special interests needs work.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
abntv1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe the thing to do is to stop any and all corporate contributions. End all union contributions. In effect put a stop to anything that is not coming in from private citizens. broadcasters are already required to givce equal time and political ads are sold at the lowest rate on the card. I would think the ACLU would have a field day with the idea of prohibiting the running of ads by special interest groups.. I can hear them now. FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with limiting contributions to those who can actually vote in elections.
The lowest rate card doesn't matter. The cost of TV advertising is so much, that candidates never can take a break from fund raising. Even after they get elected they continue to raise funds for the entire time they're in office.
My plan would be something more like if you can get more then 1, 2 or 3% of the vote (set the limit where ever) then broadcasters would be required as part of their license to provide blocks of time to candidates. Maybe from 10-2 some Saturday afternoon, maybe a few blocks during prime time, maybe one or two on weekends. It would move beyond debates. Almost like an informercial for anyone that can show that have that 1, 2 or 3% of general interest.
That way all of the ideas and platforms would have equal exposure.
Reply -
Neutral
tchef1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well that's the thing because of our freedom of speech you can't limit anyones contributions or exclude them from contributing. That would remove their ability to exorcise their freedom of speech. Maybe a better answer would be not to limit the contributions but to limit the amount that the campaigns are allowed to spend. That way they wouldn't have to raise as much money in the first place and it would level the playing field. Not to mention teach the candidates a good lesson on getting the most out of a limited budget which I think we all can agree that is something the people running our government really needs.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Chef-
I disagree with the premise that spending money is freedom of speech. Everyone can say anything they want. There's no reason to allow those with more money to speak louder then the rest of us. We wouldn't allow someone accused of a criminal act to practice free speech (giving money) to a prosecutor. I don't see where the donating of money is protected in the constitution.
Strange enough I remember a case that said government can limit contributions, but not spending. Check it out if you have the inclination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (20)
Ratskii
engineer
2sidestoeverything
tchef
Xaos
oldgringo
amazed
doppich
djn3nunez3
annoDomini
inverse
texangelwings
Blackacereturn
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin
RussianThreats
bluetexasvalleyPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.