5 ms·

Isn't funding election campaigns from public money a quick and sure route to totalitarianism? I'll say the opposite - any kind of public money involvement into

Isn't funding election campaigns from public money a quick and sure route to totalitarianism? I'll say the opposite - any kind of public money involvement into elections should be banned. Don't get fooled with 'democracy' thing. Election and democratic process are the way for the elites to decide matters between themselves without resorting to civil wars/violence, in an orderly, regulated manner. They were invented for that purpose in the middle ages England which got tired of civil wars and serve that purpose perfectly. 'Opinions' of ordinary people are not important because they effectively, don't exist: propaganda decides what their opinions will be.

vvillena 9y ago
Funding campaings from public money is widespread in Europe. Sometimes the opposite argument is made: public funding ensures a level field, in which no one has a disproportionate advantage. Of course, this has the effect of displacing the battle to the real battlefields, one of them being propaganda, as you said.
- gbacon 9y ago
  Democrats and Republicans already control ballot access laws, a clear conflict of interest. Let us wave our magic wands and — poof! — campaign expenditures are now tax-funded. Nothing meaningful changes. The Republicrats still control who has access to the ballot and thus who will receive campaign largess. “Public campaign finance” is no magic fix, rather it is welfare for already wealthy political parties.
  - ivan_gammel 9y ago
    If campaign financing will be restricted to public money, they won't be wealthy anymore and they will not be able to use to their political benefit any unrestricted hidden wealth in the form of super PACs. And this will also open way for the smaller parties and independent candidates to the fair competition.
    - gbacon 9y ago
      Smaller parties and independent candidates will still be left out because the Big Two control access to the ballot.
      - sverige 9y ago
        And people whose only jobs as adults have been elected or appointed positions will still mysteriously become worth 7 or 8 or 9 figures by the end of their careers, even though their only reported income has been a government salary.
    - anovikov 9y ago
      If politicians are denied chance to get silently wealthy on their positions, we will have different kind of politicians: not relatively benign fat cats who are after nothing but money, but ideologically explosive 'great leaders' who want to change the world in the name of their 'great' ideas (there won't be much reason to go into politics otherwise, if you can't make much cash there). Do you really want any of them? Corruptioners are the best kinds of politicians you may have.
      - ivan_gammel 9y ago
        Well, I already have plenty of politicians representing me as a result of recent elections, and they belong to neither of the kind, as far as I know. Here in Germany we probably have few fat cats, but the 'great leaders' are political marginals. The politics are done by parties, which leadership periodically changes, and the government isn't run by a single person able to impose their will on other ministers.
ivan_gammel 9y ago
>Isn't funding election campaigns from public money a quick and sure route to totalitarianism? There's no causal link between public funding and totalitarianism and there's no historical proof that this ever happened. When and if democracy fails, it happens for a number of other reasons, but this is certainly more likely to happen, when a) there's no equality in voter's influence on the outcome, b) there's no fair competition between candidates. Public funding usually addresses those two problems and at this moment does it quite successfully in Europe, which, despite all the recent turbulence and the rise of the far-right parties, is still in much better shape than USA, when it comes to the elections.
- 18pfsmt 9y ago
  Nobody in the US is going to get behind banning me, an independent citizen, from making Bernie Sanders bumper-stickers or yard-signs. Nor me making TV ads about how great Bernie would be for our country. Your proposal is at complete odds with the US Constitution with respect to an individual's right to free speech. Lobbying creates a paper trail of sorts and is therefore more transparent (How do you think opensecrets exists?).
  - ivan_gammel 9y ago
    Freedom of speech is just one of the many freedoms granted by the rule of law, it's not a law of nature and not something unquestionable in any circumstances. There are always limits to it, even in the US constitution itself (which is quite outdated document, as we already know from the mass shootings made possible by it). Limits can and should be imposed to defend the sane way to elect the government, but of course it's up to you, American people, which way do you want to go. I just hope that you'll finally sort this out somehow, because the world cannot let America being a self-proclaimed "leader of free world" ruled by Trump-like oligarchy.
hn0 9y ago
> Don't get fooled with 'democracy' thing. Election and democratic process are the way for the elites to decide matters between themselves without resorting to civil wars/violence, in an orderly, regulated manner. They were invented for that purpose in the middle ages England which got tired of civil wars and serve that purpose perfectly. That’s a fascinating thesis, can you point me to sources on it?
- nerdponx 9y ago
  I think they are talking about the Magna Carta.
bogomipz 9y ago
>"Don't get fooled with 'democracy' thing. Election and democratic process are the way for the elites to decide matters between themselves without resorting to civil wars/violence, in an orderly, regulated manner. They were invented for that purpose in the middle ages England" Democracy was most certainly not invented in the middle ages or in England. Neither of those statements is even remotely true. Democracy is a product of Ancient Greece around 300BC. And then the Romans after that. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy
- gbacon 9y ago
  The ancient Athenians would reject our form of democracy because they regarded popular elections as a tool of oligarchy. They also executed officials for abuse of power.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    None of which changes the fact that democracy was not invented in the Middle Ages or England as per the context of my comment.
    - gbacon 9y ago
      No dispute there, friend.
lr4444lr 9y ago
And those city states in the Greek peninsula which were doing it 1500 years prior?

vvillena 9y ago

Funding campaings from public money is widespread in Europe. Sometimes the opposite argument is made: public funding ensures a level field, in which no one has a disproportionate advantage. Of course, this has the effect of displacing the battle to the real battlefields, one of them being propaganda, as you said.

gbacon 9y ago
Democrats and Republicans already control ballot access laws, a clear conflict of interest. Let us wave our magic wands and — poof! — campaign expenditures are now tax-funded. Nothing meaningful changes. The Republicrats still control who has access to the ballot and thus who will receive campaign largess. “Public campaign finance” is no magic fix, rather it is welfare for already wealthy political parties.
- ivan_gammel 9y ago
  If campaign financing will be restricted to public money, they won't be wealthy anymore and they will not be able to use to their political benefit any unrestricted hidden wealth in the form of super PACs. And this will also open way for the smaller parties and independent candidates to the fair competition.
  - gbacon 9y ago
    Smaller parties and independent candidates will still be left out because the Big Two control access to the ballot.
    - sverige 9y ago
      And people whose only jobs as adults have been elected or appointed positions will still mysteriously become worth 7 or 8 or 9 figures by the end of their careers, even though their only reported income has been a government salary.
  - anovikov 9y ago
    If politicians are denied chance to get silently wealthy on their positions, we will have different kind of politicians: not relatively benign fat cats who are after nothing but money, but ideologically explosive 'great leaders' who want to change the world in the name of their 'great' ideas (there won't be much reason to go into politics otherwise, if you can't make much cash there). Do you really want any of them? Corruptioners are the best kinds of politicians you may have.
    - ivan_gammel 9y ago
      Well, I already have plenty of politicians representing me as a result of recent elections, and they belong to neither of the kind, as far as I know. Here in Germany we probably have few fat cats, but the 'great leaders' are political marginals. The politics are done by parties, which leadership periodically changes, and the government isn't run by a single person able to impose their will on other ministers.

ivan_gammel 9y ago

>Isn't funding election campaigns from public money a quick and sure route to totalitarianism? There's no causal link between public funding and totalitarianism and there's no historical proof that this ever happened. When and if democracy fails, it happens for a number of other reasons, but this is certainly more likely to happen, when a) there's no equality in voter's influence on the outcome, b) there's no fair competition between candidates. Public funding usually addresses those two problems and at this moment does it quite successfully in Europe, which, despite all the recent turbulence and the rise of the far-right parties, is still in much better shape than USA, when it comes to the elections.

18pfsmt 9y ago
Nobody in the US is going to get behind banning me, an independent citizen, from making Bernie Sanders bumper-stickers or yard-signs. Nor me making TV ads about how great Bernie would be for our country. Your proposal is at complete odds with the US Constitution with respect to an individual's right to free speech. Lobbying creates a paper trail of sorts and is therefore more transparent (How do you think opensecrets exists?).
- ivan_gammel 9y ago
  Freedom of speech is just one of the many freedoms granted by the rule of law, it's not a law of nature and not something unquestionable in any circumstances. There are always limits to it, even in the US constitution itself (which is quite outdated document, as we already know from the mass shootings made possible by it). Limits can and should be imposed to defend the sane way to elect the government, but of course it's up to you, American people, which way do you want to go. I just hope that you'll finally sort this out somehow, because the world cannot let America being a self-proclaimed "leader of free world" ruled by Trump-like oligarchy.

hn0 9y ago

> Don't get fooled with 'democracy' thing. Election and democratic process are the way for the elites to decide matters between themselves without resorting to civil wars/violence, in an orderly, regulated manner. They were invented for that purpose in the middle ages England which got tired of civil wars and serve that purpose perfectly. That’s a fascinating thesis, can you point me to sources on it?

nerdponx 9y ago
I think they are talking about the Magna Carta.

bogomipz 9y ago

>"Don't get fooled with 'democracy' thing. Election and democratic process are the way for the elites to decide matters between themselves without resorting to civil wars/violence, in an orderly, regulated manner. They were invented for that purpose in the middle ages England" Democracy was most certainly not invented in the middle ages or in England. Neither of those statements is even remotely true. Democracy is a product of Ancient Greece around 300BC. And then the Romans after that. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

gbacon 9y ago
The ancient Athenians would reject our form of democracy because they regarded popular elections as a tool of oligarchy. They also executed officials for abuse of power.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  None of which changes the fact that democracy was not invented in the Middle Ages or England as per the context of my comment.
  - gbacon 9y ago
    No dispute there, friend.

lr4444lr 9y ago

And those city states in the Greek peninsula which were doing it 1500 years prior?