The Federal Government is only Run by the Rich

[SMB]

Our current system of campaign financing is flawed. As long as private financing is allowed to go on in elections, our government legislators will continue to sell out and spend millions of dollars on elections. US elections are turning into competitions of who can spend the most money and who can get the most money...instead of who would be the best candidate for the people of America--not coporations and big private donators.

In short, only the rich can be elected to any elected position. This needs to be changed. Mandatory public financing is the solution. Public financing is when the government gives you a set amount of money to run your campaign. This would allow ALL candidates to run on an equal footing, and not just those who have friends in high places.

If elected, whose interests would the candidate apeal to? Yours or the one giviing him the large private contributions? Under mandatory public financing the elected legislator is being sincere and doing what's best for you--not what's best for the one who pays a lot.

Another plus is that party affiliation doesn't really matter....here is the percenctage of each party that want mandatory public financing:

76%Democrats

71% Independents

59% Republicans

 

[dilloduck]

Our current system of campaign financing is flawed. As long as private financing is allowed to go on in elections, our government legislators will continue to sell out and spend millions of dollars on elections. US elections are turning into competitions of who can spend the most money and who can get the most money...instead of who would be the best candidate for the people of America--not coporations and big private donators.

In short, only the rich can be elected to any elected position. This needs to be changed. Mandatory public financing is the solution. Public financing is when the government gives you a set amount of money to run your campaign. This would allow ALL candidates to run on an equal footing, and not just those who have friends in high places.

If elected, whose interests would the candidate apeal to? Yours or the one giviing him the large private contributions? Under mandatory public financing the elected legislator is being sincere and doing what's best for you--not what's best for the one who pays a lot.

Another plus is that party affiliation doesn't really matter....here is the percenctage of each party that want mandatory public financing:

76%Democrats

71% Independents

59% Republicans

good idea--good luck--too late--we are owned.

 

[theim]

And what exactly is suprising about a bunch of Democrats trying to tell me what I can and can't do with my own money?

 

[MtnBiker]

I am not "rich", SMB are you suggesting that I should not be allowed to donate money to a policital campaign?

Another plus is that party affiliation doesn't really matter....here is the percenctage of each party that want mandatory public financing:

76%Democrats

71% Independents

59% Republicans

BTW where is this information from?

 

[SMB]

I am not "rich", SMB are you suggesting that I should not be allowed to donate money to a policital campaign?




BTW where is this information from?

You support your candidate through public financing not private donations. You can support your candidate in many ways besides donating. And this way, money doesn't matter.

 

[MtnBiker]

Money does matter.

O.k. SMB let's assume there are 2 canidates running for a state wide office, canidate X and canidate Y.

As part of his plateform canidate X has gone on record proposing limited gun ownership to law enforcement agents and other such type of government employees. And repeal of concealed weapons laws.

Canidate Y has gone on record has supporting personal gun ownership, enforcing current gun control laws as opposed to new legislation. And supports gun conceal laws.

Now as a citizen and voter I wish to support one canidate over the other (something public financing will not insure)not only with my vote but with the canidate's campaign. Gun issues are very important and distinctive when a canidate is to be considered, therefore canidate Y would recieve my support.
However I work quite a bit and my personal time is limited. So as much as I would like to go door to door promoting my canidate it is just not possible. So as another form of support I willingly and freely choose to donate money to my canidate of choice. In turn that campaign can take my contribution and put it to work in areas of advertising, thus putting into action my 1st amendment right of free speech.

Without the ability to do this I believe it would be an enormously gross violation of my political freedom.

 

[SMB]

Money does matter.

O.k. SMB let's assume there are 2 canidates running for a state wide office, canidate X and canidate Y.

As part of his plateform canidate X has gone on record proposing limited gun ownership to law enforcement agents and other such type of government employees. And repeal of concealed weapons laws.

Canidate Y has gone on record has supporting personal gun ownership, enforcing current gun control laws as opposed to new legislation. And supports gun conceal laws.

Now as a citizen and voter I wish to support one canidate over the other (something public financing will not insure)not only with my vote but with the canidate's campaign. Gun issues are very important and distinctive when a canidate is to be considered, therefore canidate Y would recieve my support.
However I work quite a bit and my personal time is limited. So as much as I would like to go door to door promoting my canidate it is just not possible. So as another form of support I willingly and freely choose to donate money to my canidate of choice. In turn that campaign can take my contribution and put it to work in areas of advertising, thus putting into action my 1st amendment right of free speach.

Without the ability to do this I believe it would be an enormously gross violation of my political freedom.

With Mandatory public financing the candidate recieves sufficient funding from the government and does not need nor requires additional support from private donations.

 

[Annie]

With Mandatory public financing the candidate recieves sufficient funding from the government and does not need nor requires additional support from private donations.

and you figure that how? Seems to favor the candidate whose 'constituency' has more time to 'spare.'

 

[MtnBiker]

But giving money directly to a campaing is my freedom of speech, please answer my question. Are you suggesting that my freedom of speech be limited by the government?

Also a link to your stats is needed to have any credibility!

 

[SMB]

But giving money directly to a campaing is my freedom of speech, please answer my question. Are you suggesting that my freedom of speech be limited by the government?

Also a link to your stats is needed to have any credibility!

Of course.

http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/pantry.html

http://www.publicampaign.org/congress/howitworks.htm

I forgot to mention a private source can be made. However, not over 100 dollars to keep the fairness.

 

[MtnBiker]

Neither of your links work.


A 100 dollars? Hmm not good enough. You have not convienced me of public financing. I earn money and I can spend it how I desire. Very simply money=free speech. The first amendment gives me the right to free speech.

BUCKLEY v. VALEO
On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark case involving the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended in 1974, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. .............................

Supreme Court Decision

Contribution Limitations

The appellants had argued that the FECA's limitations on the use of money for political purposes were in violation of First Amendment protections for free expression, since no significant political expression could be made without the expenditure of money. The Court concurred in part with the appellants' claim, finding that the restrictions on political contributions and expenditures "necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money." The Court then determined that such restrictions on political speech could only be justified by an overriding governmental interest. ...........................


Link

 

[Annie]

You support your candidate through public financing not private donations. You can support your candidate in many ways besides donating. And this way, money doesn't matter.

and the information is from where?

 

[SMB]

Neither of your links work.


A 100 dollars? Hmm not good enough. You have not convienced me of public financing. I earn money and I can spend it how I desire. Very simply money=free speech. The first amendment gives me the right to free speech.

BUCKLEY v. VALEO
On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark case involving the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended in 1974, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. .............................

Supreme Court Decision

Contribution Limitations

The appellants had argued that the FECA's limitations on the use of money for political purposes were in violation of First Amendment protections for free expression, since no significant political expression could be made without the expenditure of money. The Court concurred in part with the appellants' claim, finding that the restrictions on political contributions and expenditures "necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money." The Court then determined that such restrictions on political speech could only be justified by an overriding governmental interest. ...........................


Link

So you are using the excuse of free for allowing millionaires to be the only ones who get to run our Federal Government? Well hell, I hope you realize that there are so many things already "unconstitutional" about our government. This solution would help our election system while still maintaining the right to donate.

 

[Said1]

So you are using the excuse that free for allowing millionaires to be the only ones who get to run our Federal Government?

How did you get that from Mtn's post?

 

[Annie]

So you are using the excuse of free for allowing millionaires to be the only ones who get to run our Federal Government? Well hell, I hope you realize that there are so many things already "unconstitutional" about our government. This solution would help our election system while still maintaining the right to donate.

So what is your learning disability regarding reading?

 

[Hobbit]

It's a severe limitation of free speech. Sure, poor people don't stand as much of a chance running for office (not without a rich sponsor anyway), but you know what? Life's not fair. Poor people can't start their own businesses, own big mansions, or drive limos (unless they work for the guy who owns the limo), but there's not a bill in congress to fix this, because it's not a big deal. This bill you're proposing would be like limiting what you could spend on anything from houses to tvs in order to make sure the poor don't feel left out. Well, if you can't spend the money, what's the point in making more? It's just another step down the road to socialism. The only people I could think of who would support a bill like this are politicians who support growing the welfare system, since it would not only look good to their constituents, but also because their constituents have the most free time, a resource not limited by this unconstitutional bill.

 

[Gunny]

Neither of your links work.


A 100 dollars? Hmm not good enough. You have not convienced me of public financing. I earn money and I can spend it how I desire. Very simply money=free speech. The first amendment gives me the right to free speech.

BUCKLEY v. VALEO
On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark case involving the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended in 1974, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. .............................

Supreme Court Decision

Contribution Limitations

The appellants had argued that the FECA's limitations on the use of money for political purposes were in violation of First Amendment protections for free expression, since no significant political expression could be made without the expenditure of money. The Court concurred in part with the appellants' claim, finding that the restrictions on political contributions and expenditures "necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money." The Court then determined that such restrictions on political speech could only be justified by an overriding governmental interest. ...........................


Link

Excellent argument. ITA with your stance.

 

[MtnBiker]

So you are using the excuse of free for allowing millionaires to be the only ones who get to run our Federal Government? Well hell, I hope you realize that there are so many things already "unconstitutional" about our government. This solution would help our election system while still maintaining the right to donate.

Free speech is not an excuse it is a Constitutional right, your suggestion to limit that right in the name of fairness is laughable.

I do not agree with your premiss that only millionaires are elected to the Federal Government offices. There are certainly many millionaires in the Congress however wealth is not a penalty or disgrace in our society.

I do not realize that there already many things unconstitutional about our government.

Your solution needs much more work in order to convience a voting populace to embrace it and have it enacted to law.

 

[manu1959]

Our current system of campaign financing is flawed. As long as private financing is allowed to go on in elections, our government legislators will continue to sell out and spend millions of dollars on elections. US elections are turning into competitions of who can spend the most money and who can get the most money...instead of who would be the best candidate for the people of America--not coporations and big private donators.

In short, only the rich can be elected to any elected position. This needs to be changed. Mandatory public financing is the solution. Public financing is when the government gives you a set amount of money to run your campaign. This would allow ALL candidates to run on an equal footing, and not just those who have friends in high places.

If elected, whose interests would the candidate apeal to? Yours or the one giviing him the large private contributions? Under mandatory public financing the elected legislator is being sincere and doing what's best for you--not what's best for the one who pays a lot.

Another plus is that party affiliation doesn't really matter....here is the percenctage of each party that want mandatory public financing:

76%Democrats

71% Independents

59% Republicans

so i am poor....so i make what in a yearly salary to be at poverty level? 10,000?......this most likely means i did not go to university, because i was poor and all......anyway, i want to be elected and run the country.....so i run for office and my campaign is financed by the govt.......i am elected and my new salary is well over 150,000 and my speaking engagements are pulling in 25,000 - 50,000 per speach.....i write a book and sell the rights for millions....and then ther is the movie......more millions.......i now help run the country and i am rich......yet the poor still exist.

 

[dilloduck]

Excellent argument. ITA with your stance.

It makes perfect sense that the more money you have, the more free speech you have.