Why don't we publicly finance presidential campaigns?

Give each candidate $100 million and that's it. Ban all contributions. Ban all outside groups and soft money. You get your $100 million and that's it.

This just seems like such a fucking waste. I could think of so many other more worthwhile things $500 million can be spent on than idiotic ads and fliers directed at 10% of swing voters too lazy and stupid to make up their mind about who to vote for.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040319/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_money_7

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) and Democratic nominee-to-be John Kerry (news - web sites) are on track to spend nearly a half-billion dollars vying for the White House this year, making it the most expensive presidential race in history.


Bush has already reached his goal of raising a record $170 million, with more fund raising to come. His supporters believe he could easily reach $200 million or more — and that's before he gets a government grant of about $75 million in September for his general-election campaign.


Kerry has set a fund-raising goal of about $105 million and is expected to take the $75 million in full public financing for the general election.


That would put presidential spending in the $455 million range — not counting the tens of millions of dollars the Democratic and Republican parties and outside groups will pour in.

that all this money we are funneling to our preferred candidates is just going to end up in the hands of the big media companies, and then "kickbacked" into the coffers of GOP candidates in the future.

To take Ross Perot's famous phrase: You hear that sucking sound? That's the sound of the GOP sucking money right out of our pockets and into theirs!

Alas, we're stuck with this crappy system for now, until we can beat the GOP out of all 3 branches of our federal government.

:grr:

--Peter

Who's 'we'? Surely you don't think the Dems are innocent in this, do you?

instead of special interest groups, i.e., corporations.

what do you think this is, a democracy?? :eyes:

The GOP would call that socialism and communism.

Its the one thing that would fix campagn finanace permanently.

Would you really be happy with 100 million going to Nader, 100 million going to the Green party, the libertarian party and all the others? Giving them the money would be the only way to make it fair...
And please don't insult the swing voters. They're the open minded ones, unlike so many who vote for the same party most of their life no matter what happens to it.

of more than two parties, who more often than not are indistinguishable. Not at the moment, I realize, but for most of our history, we've had very little choice.

And that is one reason that both the Dems and the 'Pugs are against it. It would mean that they would actually have to get out there and be responsive to their constituents, heaven forbid.

Actually rather than give that much money to the campaigns, do like they do in Britain, have the networks be required to give some much free time to each candidate. That way, since TV and radio advertising is the most expensive part of a campaign, we could get away with giving less outright cash.

Oh, and one more British practice to adapt. That all campaigning happen within a required time slot, say six months. Get rid of this perpetual campaign thing we've got going on now.

That's one reason.

to 3 months, gen elec time to 3 months and those using our airwaves free must give free airtime. If people would realize how much this shit throwing is costing them we could get this through. We are paying our public servants to spend 80% of their time raising money. And then we are also paying more for goods and services from the corporations who pass on the cost of their contributions to us. It is insane.

But it makes too much sense to be put into effect.

TV air time for all candidates is dirt cheep. While I think this sort of system would be great it won't happen in this country. Republicans would fillibuster it in the senate if they have to.

with campaign contributions, with golf junkets, with steaks at The Palm. To publicly finance campaigns you'd have to pass a law. To pass the law you'd have to get past all those campaign contributions, golf junkets and steaks at The Palm. If such a law were miraculously enacted, there would be dozens of smart lawyers figuring out ways to overturn it--over steaks at The Palm.

the Supreme Court case Buckley V. Valeo ruled that spending money, which includes campaign contributions, falls under the first amendment.

When money is involved as it is with our upcoming election, where one side has too much more than the other, the free speech of the other side is diminished. Their speech is squelched.

People should be allowed to make their own attack ads, or donate more money to advance personal agendas, BUT, when they do, it should cost them more than just normal advertising rates. They should pay double, triple, and higher. The opposing view gets the time slot right after their ad. The idea had better be very convincing and not just trying to bludgeon opposing views with money.

The money cannot be spent until it is recorded either.

Enough of these debates where the ground rules are hidden. If the incumbant doesn't want to show, the opponent just gets a two-hour-long time slot for sharing his opinion.

Public funding also reduces other countries interfering with our elections.

Our current system is pathetic, and a far cry from free speech.

Show me the money and I'm outta here.