could one law change everything.......?

Question

If we dropped corporate and personal funding of political parties, and transferred that to tax funded, do you think it would be better or worse?

For example, if the 1 dollar you can give (or not give) to campaign finance every year was raised to 10 dollars, and it was automatically given to the fund, there would be enough to pay for more than two parties to run and finance their campaign.

What would this mean to you? you'd be charged 9 dollars more a YEAR in taxes, and Big business's and rich people could not buy influence with campaign contributions.

Is this a huge change in your pocket? not at all.

Could this affect the outcome and principles of campaigns and politics? Absolutely.

This would take big business out of politics, other than lobbying, which would also need to be reviewed.

well, considering about 1/2 of taxpayers contribute, that means about 200m dollars are contributed every year to the fund. Multiply that by 10, and you have 2 billion a year contributed.

This could also be used to finance state elections. The peoiple running would just have to be put on a budget, and it would be equal to all others running for the same office. So money could not win.

Answer 1

"Big Business" will never be taken out of politics: it's just the nature of the beast. However, public funding of elections would be a HUGE improvement for democracy in the U.S. (it's already demonstrated its advantages in most democracies in the world.)

The key mistake in Buckley v. Valeo (the Supreme Court case that ruled campaign contributions legal) is that they equated spending money with "free speech", when in fact it is more akin to voting itself. Elections are supposed to be won by the better candidate(s), not by the more prolific fundraisers who can outspend opponents on TV, radio and other forms of advertisement.

Of all the kinds of political speech (voting, endorsing, writing editorials, making yardsigns, standing on a soapbox, etc.) only campaign contributions cannot be done equally by all people. And the more important campaign fundraising becomes, the more marginalized people not in the top economic echelon become from the operations of government. Consequently, allowing all this corporate campaign fundraising violates the "one man, one vote" precedent set by the Supreme Court.

In addition, the monstrous increase in campaign spending largely favors incumbents, causing around 95% of all candidates to get re-elected every election! How can that be coincidence when so many Americans reportedly don't like the work of the incumbents?

Finally, look at the increases in campaign spending in congressional races, vs. presidential races (which are half-funded by voluntary taxpayer contributions.) The congressional campaign spending (which has no voluntary fundraising and spending limits) dwarf the rates of spending increases in the presidential races (I'm sad to say I misplaced the chart that demonstrates this, but I know it's out there.) The public funding helps reduce the need for presidential candidates AND it shows the ability to dampen the rate of increase in campaign spending. If only there was a checkoff box for congressional races as well.

In short, providing more public funds to campaigns, along with voluntary spending caps, means more non-millionaires will get their voices heard. If public funding is removed, the only ones who will be heard are the wealthiest people and businesses. Plutocracy. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Answer 2

We have more than two parties although not everyone is aware of that lol. If you raise taxes (would have to) many would oppose. If you funnel this money into the two parties the other parties would drop off this could create a monarchy of sorts. I understand your intent but it would fail on so many levels even for the two parties. Taking Big Business out of Politics is an excellent idea in fact lets take Hollywood out of it as well. The solution is out there it just needs to be well thought out. If the average American actually could speak to his fellows like BB and Hollywood we "could" impact many things sadly we do not wield that power. The system needs to change but the people who need to change it are the ones who are benefiting from current system. Kinda like letting the Fox guard the Hen house

Answer 3

It seems like you have already answered the question for us. However, you make some really good points. I would be willing to give up an additional $9 per year to do away with "influential politics." By allowing the tax dollar to govern what is spent on a campaign will ensure that all tax payers are getting their monies-worth when it comes to politics. This is especially true if all tax-payers exercise their right to vote.

Answer 4

Great idea. Why don't You run for Office, seriously. You would have to start small and work Your way up. I completely applaud a plan that disallows big business to fund Politicians, who will eventually ask for paybacks of some kind. Kudos.

Answer 5

No. Slick lawyers and politicians would figure ways around it. The only real thing to be done is to limit the amount of advertising, limit the amount that can be collected and spent, period. Like a salary cap, you know.

Answer 6

Haven't you got systems in place that protect against busimess's donating too much cash? The rest of us do. Don't think its the corporations you have to worry about controlling the votes. Try the bible belt morons

Answer 7

Yes yes yes. That is what needs to happen. My husband told me about this and is convinced that it would change politics forever. I agree.

Answer 8

It's not a bad idea at that! but I don't think it would go down very well with big business!!!

Answer 9

its substantialy more than "10 dollars"

Answer 10

thats to much for me to read. so i say yes. let's invade