Would public funded elections resolve many of the current partisan issues?

Question

Presidents, congress, and senators, would no longer be indentured servants to campaign contributors.

Of course, the powers that own both parties would never allow that.

Your thoughts please.

.
If not, taking ALL suggestions...
.

yupgee (below) May have a point.

Answer 1

Publicly funded campaigns would help level the playing field, so that independents could get elected. The would take away much of the advantage that an incumbant has. They would lessen the power of lobbyists and make politicians more responsible to the people.

Senators Durbin and Spector are cosponsoring a bill to do just this.

Today, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-IL), alongside sponsor Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act. Modeled on the successful systems in Maine, Arizona, and North Carolina, the bill will provide full public financing for qualified congressional candidates. Joining Sens. Durbin and Specter, Representatives John Tierney (D-MA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), and Todd Platts (R-PA) will introduce companion legislation, the Clean Money Clean Elections Act in the House of Representatives.

This is a historic day in the fight to take control of our elections. Please join us in signing on as a citizen co-sponsor of the groundbreaking legislation!

Already law in seven states and two cities, “Clean Elections”-style public financing allows candidates to seek office without having to court wealthy special interests for campaign contributions. Instead, the men and women running to represent you in Congress would have the opportunity to ask you and your fellow voters for small $5 “qualifying contributions.” After candidates collect a set number of these, candidates receive public funds to mount a competitive campaign and also agree to accept no private contributions and must adhere to strict spending limits. Once in office, they are accountable only to the voters.

Sens. Durbin and Specter and Reps. Tierney, Grijalva, and Platts have taken a huge step forward in bringing Clean Elections to both chambers of Congress, in a strong show of the bipartisan support behind winning this important campaign reform.

Please show your support for Clean Elections in Congress by signing on as a citizen co-sponsor today!

We’ll be in touch soon with more you can do to lend support to these bills in Congress. It’s an exciting day for all of us at Public Campaign and we have you to thank for the Fair Elections Now Act.

Thanks,
Nick Nyhart, Jeannette Galanis, David Donnelly, and the rest of the Staff at Public Campaign Action Fund

Answer 2

How about THIS: They are now! But ALL the major candidates now turn down that funding, as it comes with caps (total spending, including both private and public)! They do better on private contributions.

So what you are proposing is eliminating ANY private contributions. Now there's a thought.

But I'm not so certain that doesn't violate some Constitutional laws. I'll have to give that some thought.

Here's a guess: NO ONE would like THAT idea (eliminating ANY party or private contributions, and requiring all candidates to use ONLY the amount given them by the Federal government).

The other problem with that is how are you going to prevent ME from spending my money to advertise for the candidate of my choice, completely separate from the candidate themselves? That happens all the time now, and to forbid it might be censorship!

I know where you're going, and I agree with your principal here, though.

Answer 3

I totally agree with you. One proposal I read was that the government gives each voter $50 to spend on any campaign they want to support--local, national, one person, many candidates--and that's the money each candidate will have.

We need to come up with some way--whether it's checking a box on our income tax returns or making the television networks give free air time to all the candidates or some combination of ideas--to get the corporate funding out of politics so that the average voter's vote counts the same as a rich person's vote.

I think election reform is the biggest issue before us, because every other issue flows from that one.

Answer 4

No, sadly the self serving political parties are stronger then money. The Democrats have the edge in numbers now so they want to punish the Republicans at all cost. Wen the Republicans were in charge they paid little attention to the Democrats.
Some childish behavior examples were Clinton's staff stealing telephones, silverware, destroying walls & desks just to slow down the Republican take over of the White House.
The Republicans desire to keep Clinton's impeachment in the front all the time.
Money is not the biggest evil in politics - it is the desire for & miss use of power.

Answer 5

No, public funding of anything besides defense is unconstitutional. What would stop the partisan B.S. is strict construction, and politicians realizing that they are not superior to us, merely our representatives. Someone legislating the way I need to live and how I should spend my money (i.e., welfare, social security, public schools, etc) has been the death of the glorious promise that our founders gave us. Well, everyone but the slaves, but thats taken care of now and my family didn't come here till the 1920's, except for that one that OWNED slaves, but we'll not talk about him.

Answer 6

The rich and powerful, especially the corporations, are going to do whatever it takes to install their people in government. They, and the current thieves suckling at the corporate teat, will never allow a fair system.

Answer 7

I think congress/reps should not be allowed to fester in office it breeds corruption. I would like to see term restrictions on many offices. I think fresh faces would be more representative of our people and less likely to let old political wounds effect their decisions.

Answer 8

Yes! Special Interest Groups are the curse of America.
AND it's unfair favoritism. I wonder how much money the politicians have in their Swiss bank accounts as they sell out to these groups.

Answer 9

That would definately help, but most people would resent having to pay more money. It's sad, but very true.

Answer 10

It's working in Arizona!