3 ms·
Obama's use of public funding is rather historic. In his first election, he raised more money in small increments from individual donors than any other candidat
by hooande 14y ago
Obama's use of public funding is rather historic. In his first election, he raised more money in small increments from individual donors than any other candidate before him. That's regular people paying $10 or $20 each instead of Citizens United or "Swiftboat Veterans For Truth" putting hundreds of millions behind candidates.
Do we want to have "secret donors" investing billions dollars to get the government to suit their business interests? Or do we want to get spammed daily by politicians asking for money? The first route cedes control to businesses, assuming that what they want will be good for most people. The second involves direct participation and a small amount of suffering from individual citizens, but puts the financial aspect of politics more into the hands of the people. This is a question that's more fundamental to the concept of democracy than it may seem.
- oinksoft 14y agoThe trouble with the micro-payments (micro, campaign-funding-wise) is that they are not vetted in the same way that larger payments are. Pardon my ignorance, but would it not be trivial for a foreign entity to take advantage of this and create a great many small payments from disparate sources (prepaid credit cards and such)? I understand there was some minor hand-wringing over this prospect in the most recent US presidential election.
- johnrgrace 14y agoOr they could become a major investor in a company which has "free speach rights" and just write one big check. I expect in 2016 some country is going to decide that they should just spend a few hundred million dollars to get the foreign policy they want.
- illuminate 14y agoRight, I find that a more likely end, if it's not already being employed.
- euroclydon 14y agoIt's kind of like the difference between the Joint Strike Fighter and the Chia Pet.