5 ms·

So we should let the government choose who gets campaign funding? Sounds like an established politician's wet dream.

throw4847285 2y ago
Oh no! Established politicians! They know how the government works, and could possibly be effective. We can't let them get reelected! I joke, but the current system is so much more vastly corrupt than this imagined scenario where small potatoes money gets handed out equally to all candidates in a race, that I just can't really imagine what your actual nightmare scenario might be.
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  The nightmare scenario is that the money is not handed out equally to all candidates. If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? Anyone wanting to run against them on this issue would simply be denied the money to do so.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    >If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? The exact same way any relief is sought against the government: the court system.
    - snowwrestler 2y ago
      Ok, and who appoints the judges? And who is responsible for enforcing court decisions?
      - drawkward 2y ago
        The government is not the conspiracy your post requires it to be.
        snowwrestler 2y ago
        I agree that our current government is not. But what you are proposing is a different government, one in which leaders could operate without the primary accountability that they face now: that anyone can organize a campaign against them.
        drawkward 2y ago
        The barriers you cite already exist. There are plenty of rules ablout what must do to get on the ballot, yet somehow new politicians still get into politics.
drawkward 2y ago
Assuming that what you say is the outcome of a proposal like mine (which, btw, it isn't): I would rather have the government (which is beholden to the constitution) than the wealthy (who aren't beholden to the constitution) be the gatekeeper. In fact, this money would be available to anyone who met whatever threshold was legally enshrined, a far better alternative than having to kiss the ring of an oligarch, as you propose.
piva00 2y ago
Many modern, developed democracies do exactly that, and are quite more democratic than 2 parties running the state. As well as not making elections a show might help democracy instead of the best showman. I will be waiting for the American exceptionalism arguments on why a thing that well functioning democracies/countries do wouldn't work in the USA.
- drawkward 2y ago
  Oh god not gun control! /s
9dev 2y ago
The government should set sensible limits on campaign contributions that avoid a system of legalised bribery, aka. SuperPACs, such that actual people get to choose their representatives, not a handful of ultra-rich with the means to steer politics. The only candidate in American politics that lives up to your idealised, independent politician of the people, is Bernie Sanders. And guess what? He strongly opposes billionaires buying themselves a government.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Works in Europe and established politicians get voted out regularly. You can also establish campaign spending limits without it being funded by taxes. In other words anyone can raise money for their campaign but only up to X amount (and no PACs).

Oh no! Established politicians! They know how the government works, and could possibly be effective. We can't let them get reelected! I joke, but the current system is so much more vastly corrupt than this imagined scenario where small potatoes money gets handed out equally to all candidates in a race, that I just can't really imagine what your actual nightmare scenario might be.

snowwrestler 2y ago
The nightmare scenario is that the money is not handed out equally to all candidates. If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? Anyone wanting to run against them on this issue would simply be denied the money to do so.
- drawkward 2y ago
  >If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? The exact same way any relief is sought against the government: the court system.
  - snowwrestler 2y ago
    Ok, and who appoints the judges? And who is responsible for enforcing court decisions?
    - drawkward 2y ago
      The government is not the conspiracy your post requires it to be.
      - snowwrestler 2y ago
        I agree that our current government is not. But what you are proposing is a different government, one in which leaders could operate without the primary accountability that they face now: that anyone can organize a campaign against them.
        drawkward 2y ago
        The barriers you cite already exist. There are plenty of rules ablout what must do to get on the ballot, yet somehow new politicians still get into politics.

drawkward 2y ago

Assuming that what you say is the outcome of a proposal like mine (which, btw, it isn't): I would rather have the government (which is beholden to the constitution) than the wealthy (who aren't beholden to the constitution) be the gatekeeper. In fact, this money would be available to anyone who met whatever threshold was legally enshrined, a far better alternative than having to kiss the ring of an oligarch, as you propose.

piva00 2y ago

Many modern, developed democracies do exactly that, and are quite more democratic than 2 parties running the state. As well as not making elections a show might help democracy instead of the best showman. I will be waiting for the American exceptionalism arguments on why a thing that well functioning democracies/countries do wouldn't work in the USA.

drawkward 2y ago
Oh god not gun control! /s

9dev 2y ago

The government should set sensible limits on campaign contributions that avoid a system of legalised bribery, aka. SuperPACs, such that actual people get to choose their representatives, not a handful of ultra-rich with the means to steer politics. The only candidate in American politics that lives up to your idealised, independent politician of the people, is Bernie Sanders. And guess what? He strongly opposes billionaires buying themselves a government.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Works in Europe and established politicians get voted out regularly. You can also establish campaign spending limits without it being funded by taxes. In other words anyone can raise money for their campaign but only up to X amount (and no PACs).