3 ms·
Easier in the sense that every citizen should be able to contribute more, and that can also be achieved through public funding. But not easier in the sense tha
by mtgx 11y ago
Easier in the sense that every citizen should be able to contribute more, and that can also be achieved through public funding.
But not easier in the sense that anyone can donate an infinite amount directly to the campaign. That just skews the system in the favor of a few donors (as it already has to a great degree).
We need the "money vote" to be "equalized" among people, just like the ballot vote is. One person shouldn't be able to donate $10 million, when 90% of the others can only donate up to $100 in a campaign. Then it just becomes inevitable that the candidate listens to the people donating $10 million, rather than those donating $100 (even if there are many more of them).
- BurningFrog 11y agoWhat I'm saying is that it would be easier for the candidate to raise money. If there is plenty money to be had from many sources, candidates don't need to spend so much time getting it, and they don't need to offer so many legislative favors in return. Note that you only need enough money to run a good campaign. Getting twice or 10 times that money does very little for your electability.