Money in elections

[BigRedBuster]

I have said many times that our government would run so much different and in so many ways better if we took money out of elections.

 

I always find this interesting. We elect people who come to us begging for our money to spend on themselves to get power and the candidate that spends the most money most of the time wins.

 

THEN, we want them to get into office and cut spending and not waste our money.

 

Those two ideas together don't make any sense.

 

So, how do we take money out of the equation???

 

Here is an idea that I came up with a few years ago and admittedly, it's one of those ideas that sound good to me but implementing it might be very difficult.

 

For the Presidential election, the candidates are given a certain amount of money to spend on the election. Let's say that is $100,000,000. Now, that candidate can spend that any way he sees fit on the election. With this system the public can see how good the candidate is at taking a lump sum of money and running an efficient organization. Someone who is frugal and can make good decisions on what is really important to obtaining the goal is going to shine.

 

Again, I believe this is a system that sounds good to me but it is impractical in the real world.

 

So, what is your solution if you believe money needs to be taken out of politics in the US?

[carlfense]

I think that mandatory disclosure laws are an excellent starting point that nearly everyone could agree on.

 

We should be able to see who is buying what.

[BigRedBuster]

Not disagreeing with you. But, that still won't change much in my opinion. For instance, everyone knows the corporations and big organizations that give to candidates and nothing changes.

 

And, a big part of all of this is the PACs that operate outside the campaigns. Both sides use them and they pretty much are free do say and do what ever they want without abiding by any election laws. Constitutional freedom of speech is a big part of why these are allowed to exist. BUT, I believe there needs to be some legal pressure put on these organizations when they flat out lie about a candidate and put out flat out wrong information.

[sd'sker]

hold up, are you not the one who agrees with the citizens united opinion?

[strigori]

Not disagreeing with you. But, that still won't change much in my opinion. For instance, everyone knows the corporations and big organizations that give to candidates and nothing changes.

 

And, a big part of all of this is the PACs that operate outside the campaigns. Both sides use them and they pretty much are free do say and do what ever they want without abiding by any election laws. Constitutional freedom of speech is a big part of why these are allowed to exist. BUT, I believe there needs to be some legal pressure put on these organizations when they flat out lie about a candidate and put out flat out wrong information.

Social media changes the equations. If we had full, mandatory disclosure laws, companies would be much more hesitant to donate to any politician. The threat of boycotts and losing customers would keep many from touching politicians. Social media makes it so much easier for people to organize and mobilize against businesses than at any point in history. Chickfila is a great example. Target had issues about a year ago also.

[Junior]

I think there needs to be a limit as to how much the candidate can raise. He/she can get it all from one person, or from 1,000,000 people. But once you hit that limit, that's all she wrote.

 

As it is look at the amount of money spent on these elections. Obama raised something like $130 million... IN SEPTEMBER. What if we did something useful with some of that money? Invested in highways, schools, soup kitchens... Instead, they'll spend it on TV commercials and private jets. Insane.

[carlfense]

McCain criticised the campaigns’ reliance on donations from corporations. “The system is now so, so terrible,” he said. He blamed the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling to allow unlimited independent political expenditure by corporations and unions on the grounds of free speech, calling it their “worst decision ever.”

 

“They said money is free speech. Since when is money free speech?” asked McCain. “Money is money.” Under the current system, the average citizen does not have the same voice as a big contributor. What does an inundation of attack ads add to the conversation, asked McCain, who has sponsored legislation seeking to limit organisations’ contributions to political parties.

http://toglobalist.org/2012/10/mccain-addresses-oxford/