5 ms·

It is freedom of speech. If they could not donate to politicians and support their cause, neither could you. If we took away all donations, only the richest cou

It is freedom of speech. If they could not donate to politicians and support their cause, neither could you. If we took away all donations, only the richest could afford to run. Also, the ability to donate has been classified as speech, thus the First Amendment precludes it from being outlawed.

beedogs 15y ago
> If we took away all donations, only the richest could afford to run. If we banned lobbying, took away all donations, and mandated all candidates use public funds to campaign, this would not be a problem. (Except to the very most annoying of Libertarians.)
- newman314 15y ago
  I've seen this suggestion made elsewhere and agree. One of the concerns raised was relative tv time being that things would be skewed towards the incumbent. To this I would propose exposure (tv, radio) inversely proportional to how the candidate does in polling, primaries etc. that is the weakest candidate get the most time... Presumably, the positions of the incumbent are already well known.
  - ianstormtaylor 15y ago
    Why would we want this artificial evening of the race? If someone is polling at 2% why should he receive a huge portion of advertising time? Doesn't make any sense.
- thekevan 15y ago
  "...took away all donations..." I do think it is a great idea in theory, but again it violates the First Amendment to take away my ability to support a candidate.
  - ktrgardiner 15y ago
    Surely there are better ways to support a candidate than money. If you want to donate something to a candidate, donate hours of your time toward their campaign. If you have easily stated reasons for supporting a candidate, you will be more likely to get more supporters for said candidate with your word of mouth than with your money.
lawnchair_larry 15y ago
"Also, the ability to donate has been classified as speech, thus the First Amendment precludes it from being outlawed." Because they bribed them to redefine their bribing as speech, which any independent thinking individual clearly knows is not the case. _Nine_ percent approval rating.
bad_user 15y ago
With the current state of affairs, only the richest can afford to not sell their soul. The fact is, once you accept a "donation" you are in somebody's pocket.

beedogs 15y ago

> If we took away all donations, only the richest could afford to run. If we banned lobbying, took away all donations, and mandated all candidates use public funds to campaign, this would not be a problem. (Except to the very most annoying of Libertarians.)

newman314 15y ago
I've seen this suggestion made elsewhere and agree. One of the concerns raised was relative tv time being that things would be skewed towards the incumbent. To this I would propose exposure (tv, radio) inversely proportional to how the candidate does in polling, primaries etc. that is the weakest candidate get the most time... Presumably, the positions of the incumbent are already well known.
- ianstormtaylor 15y ago
  Why would we want this artificial evening of the race? If someone is polling at 2% why should he receive a huge portion of advertising time? Doesn't make any sense.
thekevan 15y ago
"...took away all donations..." I do think it is a great idea in theory, but again it violates the First Amendment to take away my ability to support a candidate.
- ktrgardiner 15y ago
  Surely there are better ways to support a candidate than money. If you want to donate something to a candidate, donate hours of your time toward their campaign. If you have easily stated reasons for supporting a candidate, you will be more likely to get more supporters for said candidate with your word of mouth than with your money.

lawnchair_larry 15y ago

"Also, the ability to donate has been classified as speech, thus the First Amendment precludes it from being outlawed." Because they bribed them to redefine their bribing as speech, which any independent thinking individual clearly knows is not the case. _Nine_ percent approval rating.

bad_user 15y ago

With the current state of affairs, only the richest can afford to not sell their soul. The fact is, once you accept a "donation" you are in somebody's pocket.