What do you think of this campaign finance reform plan?

Question

1. Everybody who wants to run and can get 1% of the electorate in the race to sign a petition qualifies for public funding.
2. All qualifying candidates get the same level of funding.
3. Self-funding of campaigns is illegal.
4. Private funding of campaigns is illegal.
5. Soft money is illegal - non-profits are banned from mentioning candidates names.

M - Matt - if there are 100 million voters in a presidential race, then you need 1% of them, or one million, to sign your petition to qualify for public funds.

Noam, the idea that buying politicians is protected speech is a very novel idea. It is against the law to pay people to vote for you - the principle here is the same.

Yes, the money would come from taxation, in the name of fair elections in which voters, not contributors, decided who got elected. Seems like a good use of public funds to me.

Answer 1

Sounds like a good plan, as long as the amount of public funding is LOW.

Also, how will you know if someone will get 1% of the electorate? This needs to be addressed, because it may be a way of silencing candidates.


--I agree with the guy below me. Everyone who qualifies need s to have access to the funding.

However, the biggest problem is, the people who would vote to implement this are politicians, and why would politicians vote to hurt themselves??

--You know what? I have a better idea. No funding at all. Let their stance on the issues get them elected, instead of commercials.

Answer 2

So you will need roughly 500k signatures or so? I just take that less half the population is an eligible voter and only about half of the ones who are actually register.
Well thats certainly enough signatures. Do you think third party candidates could get half a million signatures just to get on board to be able to run... I guess some would.

So the money is going to come from taxing us then?

I guess I have mixed feelins about your plan. I do want other people to be able to participate. I have reservations about contributing money to candidates I dont support. ( which is of course what we would all be doing )

Answer 3

No marketing campaign investment in any respect! No marketing campaign commercials in any respect! no longer something, yet debates. A debate until now the primaries. Then debates until now the election. Leaflets stating the positions of applicants could be disbursed like telephone books. One to each citizen. No spin, no advertising a candidate. only themselves, their suggestions, and the widespread public. this is my suited little international.

Answer 4

More taxes would be needed, so I would vote against it. But hey, start a VSI and see what you can do. I can't see it working on a practical level, but if you can keep it constitutional(and judging by your other questions you don't seems to be a big fan of the constitution), I wouldn't scream about it.

Answer 5

While this plan would probably give us much better campaigns and fairer elections, it would be grossly unconstitutional. I can't see a way to amend the Constitution to allow it, without gutting the Bill of Rights.

Answer 6

All but number 1.

the only qualifications should be those in the Constitution.

Answer 7

First Amendment violation... It has been ruled that political donation is a form of free speech, sort of a "putting your money where your mouth is" idea.

Answer 8

Make it all equal by cutting everyone down instead of building anyone up, and make the taxpayers pay for it......

If someone else had posted this, I'd reply "this is Longhair's idea, isn't it?"

Answer 9

I like it in principle, but it is a huge first amendment problem.