2007-12-11 04:30:50 · 10 answers · asked by Holy Cow! 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Logically is there a choice? Limited financial support.
2007-12-11 04:33:39 · answer #1 · answered by edubya 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
probable no longer. And as has been pronounced a number of circumstances, in basic terms scandal can consequence from this. i've got heard that even foreign places nationals would desire to be utilising prepaid enjoying cards to donate funds to Obama and as long because of the fact the quantity is below $two hundred, there is not any criminal duty to report. there's a sturdy shot that a huge element of his contributions are not even criminal. final analysis, McCain effed it up with the help of "attaining around the aisle." marketing campaign finance is broken permaneantly, and the worst area is that activity coming up, provider/product offering firms weren't in charge, yet scandalous companies that produce no fee outdoors of a considerably bigoted liberal schedule have been.
2016-12-10 19:44:05 · answer #2 · answered by holguin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is not nearly as important as stopping the flow of lobbyist money into the system, as a first step. Public financing will do nothing if we don't stop the cashflow and enforce campaign finance laws (which we don't).
2007-12-11 04:41:49 · answer #3 · answered by JeffyB 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the line of thought though. Maybe there should be a salary/spending cap on how much they can spend on their campaigns.
The fact of the matter is that, no matter who's better qualified, only the independantly rich will ever have a shot at president for the rest of this county's history.
2007-12-11 04:40:41 · answer #4 · answered by C'est Pas Vrai! 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope! Why do you think Public financing would curb corruption??
2007-12-11 04:33:50 · answer #5 · answered by TyranusXX 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Total accountability of every dollar they get is what I want. If there was total transparency so we could see hey that one got a bunch of money from China, hey that one got a bunch of money from this pharmaceutical company.
How exactly we do that I dont know, there are so many ways they have to hide it through this company gives money to that company etc..
Maybe it should only be through personal donation and no lobbyist money.
2007-12-11 04:41:09 · answer #6 · answered by sociald 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Corruption will occur regardless. Public entities are just as corrupt as private, perhaps more so because they lack effective oversight.
2007-12-11 04:39:09 · answer #7 · answered by S C 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No because then 3/4 would go to administrative costs.
2007-12-11 04:34:40 · answer #8 · answered by Jade 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sure, that's a lovely idea. How about proportional representation, abolishing the electoral college, and paper receipts on touchscreen voting machines while we're at it?
2007-12-11 04:39:48 · answer #9 · answered by contrarycrow 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely not. Besides, why do you think that would curb corruption (see: tax fraud, Medicaid fraud, government waste, etc.)?
2007-12-11 04:35:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋