Would you support legislation to cap presidential campaign funding?

Question

With campaign finance reaching astonishing levels and cutting out many would be presidential candidates, the idea of public funding has come back into play. So would you support a measure making public financing and individual contributions the sole means of fundraising for presidential candidates with a universal cap for each candidate? I see this as a way to cut the waste and allow everyone who chooses to run a chance to be heard. It may also keep special interest groups from influencing national politics and put taxpayers back in the driver's seat. One issue some have with this is that the judiciary would have to regulate the value of each candidate and dictate who is eligable to recieve public funds. Personally though, I think this would just be a way to limit misuse of public funds and keep people from running just for the 15 minutes of fame. What do you think and why?

Answer 1

Good question and I feel the same way.
It should be the democratic way....all the way. It should be left up to a vote for the ones that become eligible for public funding.
That way it is still....majority rule.
It shouldn't have ever come to this issue on campaign spending.
We need to go back to the Abraham Lincoln days when a poor man could actually be president. Then maybe we could have an honest government.

Answer 2

ideally each candidate should be given a fixed amount of air time and budget to run their campaign. In order to qualify for government support they would have to raise a fixed amount of money and have at least 1 million signatures backing them. Then the federal government would split the donations of all the people between the candidates and no other monies could be used in the campaigns. No groups or special interest organizations could buy airtime or print time to favor a candidate. Imagine how much could be saved by this type of action.

Answer 3

Politicians on the city, county, and state level pay a small fee to qualify to run for a public office, ie: $15.00 to $100.00, depending on state.
Of course, they have to have some money to advertise themselves, however place a very tight cap on the amount and have it apply to all running..
I think anyone running for President should have to pay -say- $500.00 (?) to qualify,- BUT - more importantly - There should be strict qualifications - Education, integrity, communications skills, the ability to work with and for the good of ALL the people. He/she should have a deep love for his/her country and respect for the foundation of which it was built. It used to be - study hard, work hard, and you can grow up to be President. Now, only the very rich can grow up to be President, and most of them lacking in qualifications necessary to fill such a diverse position.

Answer 4

of course maximum of those arguments do not carry water in the different case Hillary may be shouting them from the rooftops on a commonly used foundation. regardless of if he's getting money from people who're on the subject rely of specific pastimes, he's doing it contained in certainly one of those fundraisers and guy or woman donors. it somewhat is a lot diverse from the mountains of money that flow right away from lobbyist companies right into a candidate's economic company account. Obama needs to enhance marketing campaign finance reform, and he's taken steps in that direction. this is in no way suitable yet, yet a minimum of he's making an attempt to make progression in this section in assessment to maximum others.

Answer 5

I'd support legislation to completely eliminate all funding, private and public. Elections have become little more than a fundraising contest.

Answer 6

AMEN to that