Shouldn't we publicly fund presidential campaigns?

Question

We spend a billion dollars every three days or so over in Iraq. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to set aside one billion tax dollars every four years and insist that all presidential candidates use only public funds?

Split the cash evenly between all qualified candidates and see who can make the most of their slice of the pie. Instead of rewarding the best fundraiser, this would show who has the best management skills and the strongest message.

It's one election that makes a massive difference. The cost to us would hardly register, and yet the benifts would be immeasurable. Rather than feeling obliged to reward well-heeled supporters and corporate indulge corporate whims, the leader of our country would for a change owe allegiance only to the people.

Isn't that the way it should be?

Answer 1

I agree. Using the Green Party of Canada as a example of how things work here:

Although the party did not win a seat in the 2004 election, 4.31% of the vote was a significant improvement. Starting in 2004, Canadian political parties who receive 2% of the vote in the last election are eligible for a subsidy ($1.75 per vote in 2004) from the federal government. The 2004 election results earned the Greens around $1 million CAD per year.

Based on the 2006 vote, the Greens will receive $1.2 million CAD in federal funding each year until the next federal election.

--------

Private donations are still possible in this system, and as such, the major parties still outweigh the Green party's marketing muscle, but a creative team can do a lot with 1.2 million dollars a year. It's a start anyway.

What about a salary cap?

Answer 2

You probally have a good idea there, but its not going to happen. It is all about the man or women with the most money. How do you think Ted K has stayed in office all these years. Because he has enough money to run over anyone that gets in his path. It sure isn't because he's a good man, good men don't walk away and leave some women in a car to drown.

Answer 3

i do not understand of any resources, even though it would want to be problem-free to locate some with a touch googling... i in my opinion imagine publicly funded elections are an staggering idea regardless of the reality that. provide each candidate $X to apply for promoting and so on.... I also imagine that in case your political party gained a particular quantity of the nationwide vote the previous election each candidate ought to easily accept equivalent time on broadcast television to make their case to the yankee human beings. it would want to get our applicants out of the wallet of particular interest and can want to also enable third activities to have a more effective perfect probability of prevailing some nationwide elections.

Answer 4

I strongly disagree. Why should I, or any other American, be FORCED to pay the campaign of a candidate we despise? Similarly, why should I be prevented from donating MY money to the candidate of my choice? As a consenting adult, shouldn't I be able to dispose of my income how I wish?

Who would decide who qualifies for funding under such a scheme? Who gets to decide that Candidate A gets funding, but Candidate B does not? Publicly funded campaigns give even more advantage to incumbents than they have now.

Answer 5

We do, but we should up the ammount and eliminate corporate donations. I'd also like to get rid of the primaries, let everyone run in one field and have run off elections.

Answer 6

No tax money on this. I always check that little box "No". We've got a whole lot more important things to spend money on in this country without giving these slobs another gift.

Answer 7

Everyone equal, no one better than the next guy, that sounds familiar. More government control, more rules, more regulation, more oversight. Is that what we need?

Answer 8

No, but only those who vote party only, not the person, would be in favor of that...as long as only the person they favor is getting the money.

Answer 9

No. Let them pay their own bills. All attempts to control political speech violate the 1st amendment & are doomed to failure.