Why not completely public fund election campaigns?

Question

Tell me a flaw with this idea:

Ban any private moeny from going to election campaigns. If you have enough support to get on the ballot, your campaign would be completly funded by an extremely small amount of government money. This would mean two things:

Lessen the influence of a plutocracy in America. All candidates would have the same amount to spend on their campaigns, so votes, not money would determine elections.

There would be far fewer elections ads, telephone calls and commercials, and it would be up to the news media, not campaign committees, to deliver information to the public.

Is there anything wrong with this idea? It's actual implementation would be far more complicated, but the money the government spends would be made up in the effeciency of politicians who now can focus the time they would of spent on raising campaign money on forgin public policy.

Answer 1

I agree with you... and i wish it was that way but it isn't. here's just some reasons why...



Supreme Court decided that businesses are "people" thus they are able contribute to campaigns. What does this mean? corruption but it would take a supreme court case to reverse



News media are bias. Fox is conservative, MSNBC is liberal. So then instead of allying with businesses, politicans would ally with news media (which is a private business)



I don't think taxpayers would be ok with using their taxes to fund politicians who they may not agree with. And how much is enough? Some politicians spend a lot of money just to get their name out there to voters...





Alternate solution: frequent debates between politicans so you can actually hear their ideas. Thus they have to be respectful (not as nasty as the campaign mudslinging), talk about real issues (instead of just attacking the other person). I think frequent debates would actualy be a more efficient way for voters to compare candidates

Answer 2

I agree with you, the enormous amounts of money need to be taken out of the equation. I think most people see that. It's clearly a corrupting influence. The idea that free speech protections extend to corporations and unions and all these other entities making political ads and donating millions to candidates/PACs/parties is ridiculous.



I don't really have a problem with individuals donating money to candidates though. But keep the current limit. I believe it is $2000.



---------

This is how twisted the country has gotten. The 1st Amendment somehow applies to the Exxon Corporation or the AFL-CIO. It applies to individuals, I don't care what all the sell-out corporatists on the Supreme Court say.



If freedom of speech is the real issue here, how is that individuals are limited to donating $2000 to a candidate? That would seem to be blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. Putting limits on my 'speech' indeed.

Answer 3

Sounds good to me, except for the fact that elections are supposed to be "open", and no candidate not qualifying for public campaign funding would have a chance to win an election, so you're creating a situation where unelected government officials are deciding who can run and who can't. Are we going to equally fund every whack-job who decides to run on a whim? We can't afford it, but, if we don't, it's not a truly open election.

Answer 4

The problem is freedom of speech. There are lots of advocacy groups and they have the right to air thier views. I think that the election reforms put in plass by Russ-Fiengold were good, but the Supreme Court like the chip away at them. Ah, Originalists.



There needs to be sensible restrictions, but just making them publically financed will not work.

Answer 5

What you're presenting is to get rid of human beings's ideal to loose speech. Joe Sixpack could not get variety a particular pastime team (including exertions unions, professional-lifestyles communities, etc.) to cope with the Warren Buffets and George Soros. additionally, why shouldn't companies or industries have communities to advise for their reasons and pastimes? additionally, do we pick much greater human beings based on government?

Answer 6

The 1st Amendment:



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



read that part about abridging free speach again

Answer 7

Problem is that your friend can spend a few million on your campaign, because "he likes you"

and you never touch the money

Answer 8

And why would I fund some hack like O'Donnell.



I'm fine with an oligarchy. Let people who have wealth and know how to create it make financial decisions. As if I want someone who can't afford to buy a house, who needs a mortgage, or is underwater in their mortgage making financial decisions when they can't run their own financial affairs.

Answer 9

You one other good point



Politicians will spend time GOVERNING instead of CAMPAIGNING (to get money). the campaigning seasons begins earlier and earlier every few election cycles.

Answer 10

When you want scientific democracy, that's how to get it.

Congress hasn't mentioned this recently, but PEOPLE do all the time.

Answer 11

Why not just fire all these pin-heads and start over?