Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Level playing field?

Posted 6 years ago on Jan. 6, 2012, 9:23 a.m. EST by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Don't take money out of politics! Let people and corporations spend/donate as much as they want to.

Just do not let anyone earmark their donation. Make each and every donation go into a general election fund.

Divide the General election fund into equal portions as to how many party's there are.

Then divide the fund assigned to each party equally between all candidates in the party.

No-one can have more no-one can have less.

This is free speech enforced.

No-one is given a monetary advantage.

No private group campaigning allowed.

The only campaigning, the only commercials, the only advertising allowed will be by each individual candidate with their portion of the general campaign fund.

Supporters will only be allowed to advise on how the money is spent. They will have absolutely no control on content. They can advise on strategy.

Let the Best candidate win on their own merit.

If money was not spent during a campaign, no problem it just rolls over to the next campaign's General Fund.

One more thing on the General Campaign Fund.

Make sure your accounting adds up correctly because your receipts and proof's of work provided will be required for the General Campaign Funds accounting. Any misspending of funds can and will be held accountable by the candidate, if their campaign spent more than was allotted and they won the seat, They will actually have lost to the runner-up by default of misappropriation of funds.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by WooHoo (15) 6 years ago

And when one party floods another with a string of 'candidates' ten deep for each office starting with dog catcher and working it's way up leaving each candidate with $400 to spend, what's the remedy for that or is that fair in Magic Unicorn Land?

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 6 years ago

A few things will happen

  1. A lot more people will want to contest in politics. Because now they don't have to bother about raising the money for the campaign, and they get to spend part of what others raise; everyone will jump into the fray.

  2. Campaign funding will dry up. People as well as organizations (whether it be banks, corporations, trade unions or non profits) have preferences with respect to candidates and ideology. So for example, people who wanted a government that prevents jobs from getting outsourced voted overwhelmingly for Democrats while the religious right would always vote for the Republicans. Would an NGO like Greenpeace (an example only) want that half of its campaign funding go to Republicans? Those are tricky issues.

I understand your intentions are right but these issues aren't all that easy to tackle. You guys always miss out on the human element that finally makes or mars any policy, because what you are suggesting are very radical policy changes.

I am all for reducing corruption, whether it be in politics or the teacher's union or even bodies like IPCC. But I don't think you suggested, in it's present form, will work.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Only official Party's and their candidates can participate. No lone unsupported individuals allowed.

Lone individuals would have to 1st introduce their party. An established and verified number of people representing the 50 states for presidential Elections and representative of all of their districts for state elections or federal elections to Senate or Congress.

Individuals could still speak out on issues, but would not be allowed to support one candidate or another, just the issue. Spell out what they know in facts ( not feelings ) on an issue and what they feel needs to be done on an issue. Let the "facts" speak for themselves and let "The People" weigh-in on what they consider to be the correct thing or things to do.

Yes it will not be easy, but we need to get past feelings and get to addressing issues.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 6 years ago

When did facts come into play in politics? Politics is never about facts, it all boils down to emotions and who the voters likes more (or hates less). Your OWS protests are also less about facts and more about emotions. I really wish the average voter (or OWS protester) took a decision based on facts, but they don't. Persuasion does not work on facts, which is why candidates (as well as OWS protesters) appeal to the emotional side of people, not their logical, rational left brain.

Also understand that each candidate will have different takes on different issues. So in any way, it all boils down to which issues are dearest to me and which candidates espouses those.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

All the more reason to promote and enforce, campaigning by fact not fiction, and tying a candidates successful stay in office to actually following their platform and campaign promises.

It is long past time to get feelings and popularity contests out of politics. Let the issues win popular support based on real facts. Start gathering real input from the population and act on it, use feed back in consideration of whether or not you are still supporting the Public's will in good faith.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 6 years ago

Best of luck then. Because you don't just have to change politics, you will also have re-engineer human brains. Because we human believe it or not, are compelled more by emotions and less by logic. Ask anyone who has negotiated with unions or even a hostage negotiator. Persuasion is more about emotions than logic.

More importantly, how many of the voters are even capable of and interested in understand the complex issues of economics, diplomacy, environment as well as social issues that are part of a candidate's agenda. You don't and neither do I.

If only life was as simple as you OWS guys think it to be.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

No it's not simple, but it is worth doing.

I believe that you are starting to see the awakening of the public.

I believe the public is starting to see the possibilities of taking action.

I believe that we are at the beginning of a social rebirth of taking part in our world.

I believe that facts will play a more important roll everyday in directing our society.

People are beginning to wake-up.

People are beginning to consider facts over feelings.

Things are changing.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Here is a place where you can directly address change. Take part, it does not hurt and may very well heal/help. Forward the cause of reform and rebirth.


[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Take action. See samples of how below.

183,361 signatures so far for Bernie Sanders petition as of 10:15am central time 01/15/2012


The petition to save abandoned houses has 15 signatures. We picked one up at around 9:50pm 01/13/2012. Were just rolling right along.


Here is a place where you can directly address change. Take part, it does not hurt and may very well heal/help. Forward the cause of reform and rebirth.


Sierra Club has some good things to take part in as well. Set-up and ready for you to take part in. http://sierraclub.org/

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

No private group campaigning allowed.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

This is free speech enforced.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago


[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Lets turn campaigns into meaningful communication.

Freedom of speech in this instance, "IS" the candidates free speech.

Special interest groups can still make their voice's heard, but only through their candidate, not by putting out their own propaganda or attack ads. I'm not saying that there will be none of that going on. it will just have to be done in the constraints of the General Fund and be voiced through the candidates themselves.

Binding commitment to the oath of office to do the job that they were elected for. This accountability can be established in each candidates platform. Which would mean that instead of spouting "political speak" ( the art of saying much without saying anything ), they would need to spell out exactly what they were going to be doing if elected to the office. No more "I will make things better" and leave it at that. No. They will need to say how they are going to make things better. They will need to list the issues that they are going to address and explain their position on each of the issues in detail, and then go on to say what they propose to do about them and how.

If they get elected to office and then go and do their own thing they will be immediately fired from office if they can not show a majority support from their constituents approving the action/agenda/issue and the direction it is being taken. No more LIP Service people!