6 ms·
> In this case I'm increasingly of the opinion that all campaign contributions of any kind should be banned. Unfortunately the only real effect of this is that
by esrauch 15y ago
> In this case I'm increasingly of the opinion that all campaign contributions of any kind should be banned.
Unfortunately the only real effect of this is that only the independently wealthy would be able to successfully run for office.
- Vivtek 15y agoPublic funding. If getting information to the public about candidates costs money, then that's just another tragedy of the commons - an external cost of government that is simply ignored so that the rich and powerful can have government to themselves. It is very easy to argue that informing the public about their options in an election is essential and should therefore be covered by public funds.
- pnathan 15y agoThat's a very good place for using public funds, in my opinion.
- tedunangst 15y agoWho decides which candidates get public money to spend?
- Vivtek 15y agoAny registered candidate would have to get funding for public funding to make any sense. Since the registration is already in place, there you go. If you can't get your minimum signatures to register, you don't get funding. Seems fair to me.
- tedunangst 15y agoLooking ahead to the next ca election with 2000 candidates... Give each candidate enough money to buy a tv ad and go bankrupt or give each candidate a nickel? I can't envision this system leading to more informed voters.
- Vivtek 15y agoYeah, they were real informed last time without public funding. If you guys like to have a circus every time there's nothing I can say about that, but private funding isn't the answer. Because the outcome of that is Governor Schwarzenegger.
- sorenbs 15y agoIn Denmark (and other European countries i assume) we have public founding. Parties who have been nominated for an election and received at least 1000 votes in the recent election, are entitled to receive state aid amounting to 28 DKK (~USD 5) per vote. It seems to work pretty well.
- burgerbrain 15y agoI don't understand your system, but what prevents giving money out according to votes from creating a self-fulfilling prophecy?
- sgibat 15y agoThat is the point.
- majika 15y agoWe do something similar in Australia too: http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/fad.htm http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/fad.htm
- billybob 15y agoUnder this system, how can a new party gain traction? Can they spend their own money if they don't have public funding? And if so, why would established parties NOT spend their own money if they have more than public funding will provide?
- krig 15y agoI don't see how that is any different from the current situation. Surely everyone who has run for office and seen even the slightest level of success in the US in the last century have been independently wealthy before-hand?
- nextparadigms 15y agoBan corporate donations, and limit personal donations to a relatively small sum. Ron Paul for example is getting millions every month from donations made by people alone. This should be the status quo, not the exception. But most politicians right now they know they couldn't gather as much money as they'd like this way, because they know there aren't that many enthusiastic people who love them enough to give them money. So getting money from rich people or corporations is a shortcut to being elected.