Larry Gude
Strung Out
...OK, is where we're at?
REVISED Issue #1 Free speech...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
Question: what does "public financing" mean?
And I assume we're talking about political speech or is this speech in general?
And I assume we're talking about political speech or is this speech in general?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I'm juyst trying to refine this thing in committee...
...so to speak.
It seems many people advocate public financing of campaigns to address the perceived excessive money involved, so, let's presume races for national office as having set limits for all forms of communication for eacg candidate. In other words, they can't use their own cash nor contributions.
(My secret goal is to get people to recognize how insane publicly (government) funded politics would be; The foxes gaurding the hen house AND overseeing the foxes.
vraiblonde said:
...so to speak.
It seems many people advocate public financing of campaigns to address the perceived excessive money involved, so, let's presume races for national office as having set limits for all forms of communication for eacg candidate. In other words, they can't use their own cash nor contributions.
(My secret goal is to get people to recognize how insane publicly (government) funded politics would be; The foxes gaurding the hen house AND overseeing the foxes.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I've got mixed feelings about campaign financing.
Campaigns cost money. A lot of money, and even worse because people BEGIN their campaigns at least a year before the *primary*. In other countries, campaigns are *BRIEF* - maybe six weeks. That's it.
But what this means is, you're not getting elected - at all - unless you are either rich to begin with, or can raise a lot of cash, or somehow position yourself in such a way that people WITH lots of money decide they'll give it to you.
Translation: rich folks become Senators, Representatives and President. Everyone else just votes. Secondary translation: if you're not rich, you're almost certainly beholden to someone who is.
But hey, it gets better. With the exception of the Senate - oh who am I kidding, them too - *because* of the cost of campaigns, you generally spend the second half of your term NOT doing your job, but running around trying to get money. For Representatives, this happens every other year. It sucks, big time.
On the other hand - so I find a candidate I really like. Yeah, of course, he's rich like all the others, but I like him. Why SHOULDN'T I be allowed to give my last dime to help get him into office? That's my right, isn't it? What if I persuade all my friends and neighbors to do the same? Don't they have that right too?
Sure. Why not. But the numbers go like this - whoever spends the most usually gets the job. You might as well charge money for the votes - $1 a vote, whovever gets the most money wins, and you can vote as often as you want.
So you think, hey, maybe the government should permit public financing? Larry's right - it's putting the fox in charge of the hen-house. They're the LAST people you want in charge of deciding who can run.
So maybe you should permit public financing for EVERYONE? Can't be done - can you imagine the last California governor's race, with every one of those schmucks campaigning on the public's dime? Nope, have to restrict it.
Ok - have two elections, with the second being a run-off. Won't work - can barely get the public to vote ONCE. You wanna make them vote TWICE?
So what do we do?
We have to change it so that money doesn't buy elections, or that rich people don't buy political offices. Yeah it's done that way, but it shouldn't. I'm willing to relinquish some of my 'rights' to create a system that is fair, and promotes good ideas, good candidates and a mix of fresh ideas. Right now, the system strongly favors a) the rich buying their office b) corrupt persons getting into office on the dime of the rich or c) powerful political parties - Dems and Repubs only - dominating the political choice. They roll someone out, and he's your choice. Don't like either? Too bad, because one of those two is getting elected, and it will probably be the guy with the biggest wallet.
It bothers me to know that if someone like Soros was really dead on serious - he could just buy the White House for Hillary.
What SHOULD be done? Or do we all like it the way it is?
Campaigns cost money. A lot of money, and even worse because people BEGIN their campaigns at least a year before the *primary*. In other countries, campaigns are *BRIEF* - maybe six weeks. That's it.
But what this means is, you're not getting elected - at all - unless you are either rich to begin with, or can raise a lot of cash, or somehow position yourself in such a way that people WITH lots of money decide they'll give it to you.
Translation: rich folks become Senators, Representatives and President. Everyone else just votes. Secondary translation: if you're not rich, you're almost certainly beholden to someone who is.
But hey, it gets better. With the exception of the Senate - oh who am I kidding, them too - *because* of the cost of campaigns, you generally spend the second half of your term NOT doing your job, but running around trying to get money. For Representatives, this happens every other year. It sucks, big time.
On the other hand - so I find a candidate I really like. Yeah, of course, he's rich like all the others, but I like him. Why SHOULDN'T I be allowed to give my last dime to help get him into office? That's my right, isn't it? What if I persuade all my friends and neighbors to do the same? Don't they have that right too?
Sure. Why not. But the numbers go like this - whoever spends the most usually gets the job. You might as well charge money for the votes - $1 a vote, whovever gets the most money wins, and you can vote as often as you want.
So you think, hey, maybe the government should permit public financing? Larry's right - it's putting the fox in charge of the hen-house. They're the LAST people you want in charge of deciding who can run.
So maybe you should permit public financing for EVERYONE? Can't be done - can you imagine the last California governor's race, with every one of those schmucks campaigning on the public's dime? Nope, have to restrict it.
Ok - have two elections, with the second being a run-off. Won't work - can barely get the public to vote ONCE. You wanna make them vote TWICE?
So what do we do?
We have to change it so that money doesn't buy elections, or that rich people don't buy political offices. Yeah it's done that way, but it shouldn't. I'm willing to relinquish some of my 'rights' to create a system that is fair, and promotes good ideas, good candidates and a mix of fresh ideas. Right now, the system strongly favors a) the rich buying their office b) corrupt persons getting into office on the dime of the rich or c) powerful political parties - Dems and Repubs only - dominating the political choice. They roll someone out, and he's your choice. Don't like either? Too bad, because one of those two is getting elected, and it will probably be the guy with the biggest wallet.
It bothers me to know that if someone like Soros was really dead on serious - he could just buy the White House for Hillary.
What SHOULD be done? Or do we all like it the way it is?