Is so-called “campaign finance reform” just another example of picking one’s poison?

[jack3]

I see only three ways to finance political campaigns: money from taxpayers, money from lobbyists, and/or money from the candidates themselves.

My experience is that most people will pick the taxpayer option; however, isn’t that just paying for the privilege of being made a fool by politicians?

What would you pick and why?

 

[White 6]

I see only three ways to finance political campaigns: money from taxpayers, money from lobbyists, and/or money from the candidates themselves.

My experience is that most people will pick the taxpayer option; however, isn’t that just paying for the privilege of being made a fool by politicians?

What would you pick and why?

Interesting question.
1. Paid for by candidate themselves is quite a bit like seat for sale to man with biggest bank account, no matter how he got it. It is not a qualifier, in any way. No Good.
2. Money supplied by lobbyists is candidate for sale, expecting return on investment. No Good.
3. Money supplied by tax payers does pay for being made a fool of by politicians, but preferable to the other options, and should be a fixed amount, equal money/equal exposure, showing management of resource effectiveness. Not perfect by any means as politicians (worse than lawyers {especially their lawyers]) will be politicians, so not to be trusted further than you can see them, for the good of the electorate.

 

[rightwinger]

Change your swastika avatar

 

[jwoodie]

I see only three ways to finance political campaigns: money from taxpayers, money from lobbyists, and/or money from the candidates themselves.

My experience is that most people will pick the taxpayer option; however, isn’t that just paying for the privilege of being made a fool by politicians?

What would you pick and why?

I think campaigns for political offices should only be financed by individual contributions. Intermediary fundraising by corporations, labor unions and other organizations should be prohibited. Individual donors and candidates should be able to spend as much of their own (after tax) money as they want.

 

[jack3]

Baseball teams with the highest payrolls often flop. Such it is with candidates:

Wealthy Candidates Should Fund Their Own Campaigns​

Excerpt:

The second incentive is the weird belief that politicians think Americans have about people self-funding campaigns. It’s conventional wisdom that self-funding a campaign is icky. It suggests that you don’t have real support among Americans and are flaunting your wealth in a distasteful way. This was perhaps best exemplified by Michael Bloomberg’s (net worth: $94.5 billion) billion-dollar 2020 Democratic primary campaign in which he only won American Samoa.

It didn’t work for Bloomberg, but maybe that has more to do with Americans’ hesitance about putting an environmental fundamentalist who would prefer that you not be allowed to buy soda in charge of the country.

Wealthy Candidates Should Fund Their Own Campaigns | National Review

Why scrounge around for small-dollar donations when you’re sitting on personal wealth?

www.nationalreview.com

 

[American Eagle]

These candidates have plenty of money to foot their own bill. Ya, I don't need to be taxed to death to support your mostly elitist asses.