Why not have an equal playing field for all presidential candidates?

Question

Give each candidate a certain amount of public $$$ to use on their campaign, and that's all they can use- nothing even from their own pockets. No outside contributions, therefore eliminating the need to be wealthy to run. What do you think?

Answer 1

Sure. Sounds good.

The problem is, neither of the major political parties are going to allow their elected officials to eliminate the single biggest advantage both major partise have -- fundraising contacts.

Both major parties want to preseve the status quo, so they only have one known opponent. And by keeping it a two party system, they can exploit the entrenched political divide that's already in place, which makes it easier to avoid having to debate issues on the merits.

So, the only way to achive this would be by Constitutional amendment. See the link below for one proposed example.

Answer 2

In American politics the term matching funds refers to the money a presidential candidate is given by federal government to match the money they have raised personally. Candidates can expect up to $250 extra from public funds for each contribution from an individual they receive.

This usually only applies to the two main parties; as for third party candidates gaining the benefits of matching funds they must additionally have received 5% of the popular vote in the previous election. Hence the anomaly of Ross Perot standing as Reform Party candidate in 1992 and receiving 18% of the vote, yet receiving no matching funds due to the fact that the Reform Party did not receive 5% of the vote in 1988; whilst Pat Buchanan, running as the Reform Party candidate in 2000, did receive matching funds despite winning only 0.4% of the vote.

Answer 3

I do not want my tax money spent that way. Donated money is the vast majority of what is used in an election. Anybody can run for president.and many do as a joke. If the government gave money for election candidates, everybody would be lining up to run just for the dough.
I would say have a presidential candidate free cable TV network but that gives to much control to whoever is chosen to run it.

Answer 4

I dont know, I like equal playing fields, but if a candidate wants to pay for it, I say let him.

Answer 5

Won't work. There is & will always be tons of "soft" money being spent. I think George Soros spent more than the DNC or RNC in 04.

Answer 6

that sounds fair for all practical purposes, but I don't think that it would work now. For that to work, that would've had to be a rule from the beginning. They have always had financial donations from businesses, etc, so we can't just change the rules in midstream.

Answer 7

Sopreme court has ruled: Money=Free speech. End of story....