Forum Post: what do you mean by campaign finance reform?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 10, 2011, 9:25 p.m. EST by Rob
(881)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Does it mean for the president there will be a pool of 200 million and each candidate gets 100 million each? What is the plan?
Obama/Microsoft Illegal Presidential Campaign Contributions 2008
http://expotera-ceo.blogspot.com/2010/05/microsoft-illegal-campaign.html
the core problem is NOT who pays for expensive campaigns, it's why are campaigns expensive in the first place? Election reform to create free and open elections is the place to start. Anyone with a website should be able to be a candidate. From there, yes, those with more marketing/advertising money have an advantage, but such is life...
It should be illegal for any person, entity, business or any other name you come up with to give any amount of money to any political figure for any reason.
Political ads should be outlawed. There should televised debates and competing political position papers in newspapers. If you don't have the attention span to watch a debate, or if you lack the ability or desire to read, you should not vote.
Sounds like China.
In 1980 neither Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan used any private fundraising for their campaigns. Only the voluntary $2 people gave when filing their taxes.
First demand: Constitutional Amendment to ban private campaign contributions of any kind. Second demand: No more lobbyist.
It means a few different things, but a good idea would to allow anyone to donate, but they have to donate it to a npo, then that npo distributes it evenly between all candidates (we hope for more than red vs blue). This makes it anonymous so corporations can't claim to have ownership of politicians, and it will help the underdogs who don't get to run fairly because they can't afford million dollar ads
why not just force private television and radio stations to give air time to candidates? sounds like it would be a lot cheaper and solve the problem
Hmmm. Forcing a private business to do government work, what is that called again?
idk liberalism?
I hope you are joking.
Why don't they just force private citizens to hand out pamphlets. Sounds like it would be a lot cheaper and solve the problem.
no because you have to cut down trees to make paper
think of the polar bears and how we need to offset their carbon foot print
You're right, I never think of the polar bears.
inorite
In my opinion what i would like to see done is to make donations from groups and corporations illegal. Then limit the individual contribution amount to $2500 per year. or so.
You dont need all this money to get elected. Politicians are spoiled.
Elections have become about who has the most money. I would not mind a govt fund for televised debates( or on a govt cable channel as well as webcast) with a set amount of debates. Any additional campaigning comes out of the candidates campaign. That way everyone gets a certain amount of time to be heard equally. But those who raise money still have an overall advantage.
I mean have you seen the amount of signs alone in an election year. I cant throw a rock and not hit an election sign....and i live in the country!
Extended rounds of voting at more local and regional levels, leading up to national levels could allow candidates to be fielded and rise according to their support bases. Elections would be longer and boring, but if they were evenly funded and regulated appropriately, they would probably create a better overall government.
One that operated with public interest in mind before private loyalty.