4 ms·

How can you fix money in politics without making the whole system worse?

raarts 10y ago
Do you think making politicians dependant on funding makes politics better?
smt88 10y ago
1) Campaigning is restricted to a short time period, perhaps 6 months. 2) Every candidate gets a (small) fixed budget, paid for by tax-payers. (This is already the practice in some countries.) 3) Ads are subject to the same laws that govern ads for products: say whatever you want, but you can be sued for lying. Any of those ideas sound good?
- sjwright 10y ago
  That's pretty much what we have in Australia — except the campaign period is much shorter still, around 6-8 weeks.
- mullen 10y ago
  > 1) Campaigning is restricted to a short time period, perhaps 6 months. You can't do this without limiting Free Speech. > 2) Every candidate gets a (small) fixed budget, paid for by tax-payers. (This is already the practice in some countries.) Might be possible. > 3) Ads are subject to the same laws that govern ads for products: say whatever you want, but you can be sued for lying. Lying is Free Speech.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    So limit free speech. It's already not absolute, never has been, never will be.
  - smt88 10y ago
    Lying is free speech, but you can already sue if someone's speech is false and then damages you. A candidate's lies should qualify as damaging to someone who votes for them under false assumptions.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 10y ago
    Lying is a felony in several situations.
- twoodfin 10y ago
  So the New York Times can only say good or bad things about elected officials and potential candidates for the six months before an election? If not, people with money looking to campaign outside your window will just buy media companies.
  - smt88 10y ago
    Media companies, by definition, are never considered to be "campaigning". They can say whatever they want. There legal definition of campaigning (ex. churches aren't allowed to campaign in many countries).

Do you think making politicians dependant on funding makes politics better?

smt88 10y ago

1) Campaigning is restricted to a short time period, perhaps 6 months. 2) Every candidate gets a (small) fixed budget, paid for by tax-payers. (This is already the practice in some countries.) 3) Ads are subject to the same laws that govern ads for products: say whatever you want, but you can be sued for lying. Any of those ideas sound good?

sjwright 10y ago
That's pretty much what we have in Australia — except the campaign period is much shorter still, around 6-8 weeks.
mullen 10y ago
> 1) Campaigning is restricted to a short time period, perhaps 6 months. You can't do this without limiting Free Speech. > 2) Every candidate gets a (small) fixed budget, paid for by tax-payers. (This is already the practice in some countries.) Might be possible. > 3) Ads are subject to the same laws that govern ads for products: say whatever you want, but you can be sued for lying. Lying is Free Speech.
- Frondo 10y ago
  So limit free speech. It's already not absolute, never has been, never will be.
- smt88 10y ago
  Lying is free speech, but you can already sue if someone's speech is false and then damages you. A candidate's lies should qualify as damaging to someone who votes for them under false assumptions.
- onlyrealcuzzo 10y ago
  Lying is a felony in several situations.
twoodfin 10y ago
So the New York Times can only say good or bad things about elected officials and potential candidates for the six months before an election? If not, people with money looking to campaign outside your window will just buy media companies.
- smt88 10y ago
  Media companies, by definition, are never considered to be "campaigning". They can say whatever they want. There legal definition of campaigning (ex. churches aren't allowed to campaign in many countries).