English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

How about this: Anyone who wants to run for public office designs a flyer, which is mailed by the government to the voters' homes, and if a determined number of people sign their support, this person is on the ballot and receives a certain amount from the government (based on the office and possibly other factors, number of people in voting pool, etc..) to spend on their campaign and are not allowed to spend a penny more.

if people don't like the fact that this comes from their tax money, keep in mind that when corporations finance campaigns, they're planning to get the money back from your tax money anyway.

any ideas, suggestions, criticism?

2006-08-18 17:10:06 · 4 answers · asked by Aleksandr 4 in Politics & Government Civic Participation

Michelle: The number of signatures would be a requirement to be on the ballot, nothing else... if it were used to determine how much money they receive, it would mean the two main parties from before the reform would receive an unfair amount, in my opinion.

and if they sent out the wrong number of flyers, it would be a crime, like any election fraud.

2006-08-18 17:35:52 · update #1

4 answers

I do believe you have your pointy finger on something there. But, this is not the time for friendly responsible questions. Try this, Can the Democrats every give up the false hope of telling the American people the truth about where and what the gazillinaires do with their money. I mean, who in gods great creation can earn a billion dollars a year?
Nobody that's who.
So just what is the government doing for this person to allow him to get away with all your tax money? Would it not be better to improve the schools? How about responsible health care for every American? How about affordable housing for combat veterans? How about day care for children?
That billionaire can not replace a real peoples ability to come together and do good for the Country and the people, can he?
Thanks for the question and keep up the fight!

2006-08-18 17:26:55 · answer #1 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 1 0

and how lengthy do you imagine it would want to take a set of attorneys to confirm a way round this new legislations? What makes you imagine the drafters of this reform wont go away openings for themselves? Do you particularly imagine those politicians might want to bypass something that could want to damage themselves? awaken pal, and scent the espresso. They already imagine they are above the regulation, what solid will this reform particularly do? Its all political fodder, so one in each and every of them can element a bony finger at the different, even as they both take funds anyhow. the purely element that may particularly be carried out is to reduce the quantity that could be spent in protecting with candidate, and a entire quantity that each and every party can deliver mutually and function in thier chest. huge agency benefits acceptance an analogous because the small man or woman. no more beneficial, no a lot less. BTW, I hate lobbiests, yet do not recognize a thanks to eliminate them.

2016-11-05 03:35:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well, what about the candidate that does not receive as many voter signatures as the other? They would have unequal financial support. And you have to consider what if there is a discrepancy in the amount of flyers mailed on the part of the government..perchance by conspiracy or some kind of mistake?

2006-08-18 17:28:30 · answer #3 · answered by Michelle H 2 · 0 1

idea: public financing of elections. candidates receive no money from big business or unions or corporations. Funded by the people for the people!

2006-08-19 01:37:36 · answer #4 · answered by Rameshwar P 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers