3 ms·

I'm wondering what his take on the French system is. Basically, there is a limit on how much candidates can spend, and the State refunds the candidate (on certi

I'm wondering what his take on the French system is. Basically, there is a limit on how much candidates can spend, and the State refunds the candidate (on certified expense report) if a certain score is reached during the vote. Getting money from a corporation is an offense, spending too much is an offense, cooking the books is an offense, getting undeclared money is an offense.

dantheman 12y ago
Money is normally, needed by challengers - incumbents have a lot of advantageous including notoriety. If anything the US should make laws to enhance the challengers, not solidify incumbents.
- rtpg 12y ago
  just by the way, you get your funding refunded at about 5% of the vote, so it's not like the challengers have little access to the funding.
hornetblack 12y ago
In Australia the Party doesn't have a limit on funding. But all funding must be declared. The government will cover the campaign funding for their portion of the primary vote. So even if you live in a safe Liberal seat. Voting for the Greens will still get the Greens some campaign money for next election.
snowwrestler 12y ago
> Getting money from a corporation is an offense, spending too much is an offense, cooking the books is an offense, getting undeclared money is an offense. FYI, the only one of those that is not a federal offense in the U.S. is spending too much.
heydenberk 12y ago
I don't think anyone struggles to imagine how a better system would work. The issue is that the current Supreme Court has set strict limits on the legal regulation of campaign finance, so there are few straightforward paths to reform.
sylvinus 12y ago
I talked with him a couple days ago and while I didn't ask about France specifically, he basically said that "corruption" can take different forms overseas, depending on the system in place there are always indirect ways for money to exert influence. (and ways to fight it!)

dantheman 12y ago

Money is normally, needed by challengers - incumbents have a lot of advantageous including notoriety. If anything the US should make laws to enhance the challengers, not solidify incumbents.

rtpg 12y ago
just by the way, you get your funding refunded at about 5% of the vote, so it's not like the challengers have little access to the funding.

hornetblack 12y ago

In Australia the Party doesn't have a limit on funding. But all funding must be declared. The government will cover the campaign funding for their portion of the primary vote. So even if you live in a safe Liberal seat. Voting for the Greens will still get the Greens some campaign money for next election.

snowwrestler 12y ago

> Getting money from a corporation is an offense, spending too much is an offense, cooking the books is an offense, getting undeclared money is an offense. FYI, the only one of those that is not a federal offense in the U.S. is spending too much.

heydenberk 12y ago

I don't think anyone struggles to imagine how a better system would work. The issue is that the current Supreme Court has set strict limits on the legal regulation of campaign finance, so there are few straightforward paths to reform.

sylvinus 12y ago

I talked with him a couple days ago and while I didn't ask about France specifically, he basically said that "corruption" can take different forms overseas, depending on the system in place there are always indirect ways for money to exert influence. (and ways to fight it!)