• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

  • yes

    Votes: 11 47.8%
  • No

    Votes: 12 52.2%

  • Total voters
    23

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Wouldn't libertarians like to get corperations out of Federal policy making? Why not let policy be what politics are about?

msnbc.com Video Player
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I don't know about federally financed, I'd like to see people stop being able to buy elections. First, make it illegal to donate directly to any specific political campaign. If you want to donate, you donate to a general fund which gets dispensed equally to all people running in a particular election. Individual politicians cannot put a penny of their own money into their campaign. That puts everyone on an even playing field. Second, assign federal financial overseers to each campaign who keep track of every penny spent. Anyone who plays hanky panky earns a quick trip to jail for financial misconduct. Third, I'd like to see a limit on how much advertising and especially how much negative campaigning can be done. Require TV and radio stations, as a consequence of their FCC licenses, to air a certain number of 30-second political ads per day (probably under 5 ads), spread out amongst all candidates. These are done in such a way that there is equal coverage among the candidates in various times of the day.

We need to get the elections to be about issues, not money.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,761
Reaction score
22,363
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I don't know about federally financed, I'd like to see people stop being able to buy elections. First, make it illegal to donate directly to any specific political campaign. If you want to donate, you donate to a general fund which gets dispensed equally to all people running in a particular election. Individual politicians cannot put a penny of their own money into their campaign. That puts everyone on an even playing field. Second, assign federal financial overseers to each campaign who keep track of every penny spent. Anyone who plays hanky panky earns a quick trip to jail for financial misconduct. Third, I'd like to see a limit on how much advertising and especially how much negative campaigning can be done. Require TV and radio stations, as a consequence of their FCC licenses, to air a certain number of 30-second political ads per day (probably under 5 ads), spread out amongst all candidates. These are done in such a way that there is equal coverage among the candidates in various times of the day.

We need to get the elections to be about issues, not money.
That doesn't cover the problem of third party ads.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,729
Reaction score
17,144
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No. It is difficult to argue against the grain that money=freedom of speech and controlling that is going against freedom of speech. It would be silliness if the government would try to go against the mass opinion on this issue. Next, campaign finance reform has just been one giant package of unintended consequences and shuffling the money elsewhere, constantly trying to find the hole to plug it up.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
No. It is difficult to argue against the grain that money=freedom of speech and controlling that is going against freedom of speech. It would be silliness if the government would try to go against the mass opinion on this issue. Next, campaign finance reform has just been one giant package of unintended consequences and shuffling the money elsewhere, constantly trying to find the hole to plug it up.
So corperate donations are ok in your book and it's simply an expression of freedom of speech huh?
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,729
Reaction score
17,144
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not simply, but yes, an expression of speech.

The truth is that you will not remove the power of money from the equation of American politics. Democrats have tried for decades, and for their own party it has not worked well.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Not simply, but yes, an expression of speech.

The truth is that you will not remove the power of money from the equation of American politics. Democrats have tried for decades, and for their own party it has not worked well.
So corperations deserve the same rights as individuals?
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Who casts the corporate ballot on election day?
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm skeptical that there is any causal relationship between the amount of money that the candidate spends and the electoral results they achieve...at least once you get beyond the point where most voters know who the candidate is. It's true that there is a correlation, but I think this is more due to the fact that popular candidates tend to get both a lot of votes and a lot of money, rather than any direct relationship between the money and the votes.

Therefore I'm skeptical that federally-financed political campaigns would do much.
 

sokpupet

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
252
Reaction score
81
Location
In your heart.
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
In this day and age of technology after the first several million used to campaign it becomes just buying votes. I also think those running for public office should be allowed to run negative ads. I certainly do not think a corporation is the same as an individual and should be allowed to donate an unlimited amount to a campaign. Each person runnning should have to turn in a monthly report on campaign accounting. Money is what has ruined our political process. Politicans are all about pumping up the war chest vs tending to the nation's business. It is epically warped. The money spent on campaigning is obscene and immoral. These candidates have so much $ swirling around them they begin to think they are above the law and above morality/ethics.
 

sokpupet

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
252
Reaction score
81
Location
In your heart.
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Most politicians would sooner endorse the clubbing of baby seals than oppose "campaign finance reform."

Currently, an individual can contribute up to $1,000 per candidate per election; political action committees may spend $5,000 per candidate per election; and individuals may spend unlimited amounts of their own money on their own campaigns. Congress passed these limitations during the post-Watergate "let's get the money out of politics" frenzy. But these constraints, as always, simply induced candidates to figure out a way of raising more money. Enter the often-criticized "soft money," contributions made to political parties, with neither limits nor regulation.
The Fifteen Most Corrupt Members of Congress
Report Summaries
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA)
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
I say, One Person.. .. ..One Vote.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
You see this is a huge chink in the libertarian armour federally speaking. The Tea Party is the creation of the far right corporate interest and so it doesn't actually represent libertarian ideals but rather corporations special interest in federal government. Are libertarians being duped by the "Tea Party"?
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So corperate donations are ok in your book and it's simply an expression of freedom of speech huh?
That's not the issue involved. The issue involved is that even if you do get federally financed political campaigns anyways, or inhibit corporate donations to candidates, there's nothing to stop an independent organization from putting out their own ad in favor of one candidate or criticizing another candidate.

So even if, say, GM was prohibited from giving millions to Congressional candidates there's nothing to stop GM from instead giving millions to an independent "advocacy" organization which could then produce and broadcast it's own ads supporting or criticizing a candidate. Doing that can't be prohibited because of freedoms of speech and freedoms of assembly.

If you're against corporate interests having an undue influence over federal legislation, then the answer isn't to limit campaign financing. Rather, the answer is to implement a system of federal popular initiatives that gives some amount of legislative control over the people. That's pretty much the only way it can be done.
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
That's not the issue involved. The issue involved is that even if you do get federally financed political campaigns anyways, or inhibit corporate donations to candidates, there's nothing to stop an independent organization from putting out their own ad in favor of one candidate or criticizing another candidate.

So even if, say, GM was prohibited from giving millions to Congressional candidates there's nothing to stop GM from instead giving millions to an independent "advocacy" organization which could then produce and broadcast it's own ads supporting or criticizing a candidate. Doing that can't be prohibited because of freedoms of speech and freedoms of assembly.

If you're against corporate interests having an undue influence over federal legislation, then the answer isn't to limit campaign financing. Rather, the answer is to implement a system of federal popular initiatives that gives some amount of legislative control over the people. That's pretty much the only way it can be done.
I disagree. Third party advertisment should just be outlawed and campains financed by the public. End this bull**** lobbying.

Edit: campain donations from corperations should be criminal and individual contributions capped and monitored.
 
Last edited:

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I disagree. Third party advertisment should just be outlawed and campains financed by the public. End this bull**** lobbying.
So what's the difference between a third-party advertisement, a public service announcement regarding government issues from a private organization, and a blogger who posts on the internet advocating one candidate's policy over another?
 

Gabriel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
118
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
So what's the difference between a third-party advertisement, a public service announcement regarding government issues from a private organization, and a blogger who posts on the internet advocating one candidate's policy over another?
It isn't a public service announcement if it is done by a private organization. It's a private service announcement. Corporations don't have a vote they are not individuals.. they should never make donations to your elected representatives.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It isn't a public service announcement if it is done by a private organization. It's a private service announcement. Corporations don't have a vote they are not individuals.. they should never make donations to your elected representatives.
Okay then. What about executives who are in charge of corporations? There's nothing to stop them from donating to candidates in order to pursue the benefit of the corporation they are a part of.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,761
Reaction score
22,363
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Okay then. What about executives who are in charge of corporations? There's nothing to stop them from donating to candidates in order to pursue the benefit of the corporation they are a part of.
I see less of a problem with private citizens contributing as long as its their money and not the corp's.
 

Technocratic

Active member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
359
Reaction score
103
Location
Soviet Technate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is a way to fix the problem of independent groups putting out junk political ads: ban all political ads. Institute mandatory formal debate in writing/television in its place for all candidates. All funding should be public, based on tax dollars. There should be no independent funding allowed, from corporations or citizens.
 
Last edited:

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,761
Reaction score
22,363
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
There is a way to fix the problem of independent groups putting out junk political ads: ban all political ads. Institute mandatory formal debate in writing/television in its place for all candidates. All funding should be public, based on tax dollars. There should be no independent funding allowed, from corporations or citizens.
Yep, this is the only way we are ever going to get the voice of the citizenry back and cut out a lot of the current corruption.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,761
Reaction score
22,363
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,761
Reaction score
22,363
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
People have voted, with their dollars, to support these groups.
What's the difference?
The difference is that money makes some more equal than others. I am all for the inequality that money brings, but not for a critical matter, such as this.
 
Top Bottom