The Federal Government is only Run by the Rich

[MtnBiker]

I am very happy that as long as I am spending my money in a lawful manner I can spend it however I choose.

 

[manu1959]

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

cindy sheehan doesn't have much money she seems to have quite a bit on the flip side sorros, kerry kennedy and fienstein have quite a bit and they to be heard

 

[dilloduck]

cindy sheehan doesn't have much money she seems to have quite a bit on the flip side sorros, kerry kennedy and fienstein have quite a bit and they to be heard

Right--Sheehan is bankrolling her entire effort.

 

[Mr. P]

... 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.

...

Oh yeah, political welfare, that’ll do er!
Not to mention “Forcing” people to pay for political MORONS!!! that run for office…
Great idea…NOT!!! :funnyface

 

[MtnBiker]

Perhaps Sheehan should be publicly financed as well.

 

[manu1959]

Right--Sheehan is bankrolling her entire effort.

she ain't rich and she is being heard.....the premise of the thread is only the rich have free speach

 

[dilloduck]

Perhaps Sheehan should be publicly financed as well.

NO WAY----people should pay for their own private mouthpiece.

 

[manu1959]

NO WAY----people should pay for their own private mouthpiece.

would that apply to all politicians as well?

 

[dilloduck]

would that apply to all politicians as well?

Of course--I'm sure that's what the founding fathers intended.

 

[manu1959]

Of course--I'm sure that's what the founding fathers intended.

fund your own campaign? no contributions no federal matching funds?

 

[dilloduck]

fund your own campaign? no contributions no federal matching funds?

I was being facetious---we all have one vote to cast for whichever candidate those with the most money tell us too.

 

[Mr. P]

I was being facetious---we all have one vote to cast for whichever candidate those with the most money tell us too.

You vote for who your told to vote for Dillo? I don't, never have never will.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

public financing has so many flaws, not to mention it violates virtually every amendment of the constitution.

there are poor people who go on to political sucess, it just doesnt happen as often anymore.

Im wondering how Washington and Jefferson and others would view your idea that rich people are no good at governing?

The BEST and ONLY way to make people accountable for their political leadership is to make govt smaller, and give more and more authority to those at local levels. PERIOD.

EVERY attempt at campaign finance laws gives me a robust laughter deep down in my belly...

 

[SMB]

I fail to see how prohibiting large contributions that deterimine elections is an infringment on your right to speak out. Could you not also argue that banning flag burning, the patriotic act and the electoral college are all unconstitutional and should not be allowed? No. They are allowed because they help our society and make the United States work better. So why is it so hard to make the same exception for campaign financing?

 

[Avatar4321]

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

Yeah right. Hey everyone lets tax ourselves out of existance because rich politicians no longer want to actually appeal to the people to finance their campaign. They think they should be entitled to our tax money to run their campaigns even if we utterly despise what they are running on.

How about we get to real campaign finance reform. Let any American donate to any candidate he or she feels like donating to. Require any candidate to fully disclose any source for his finances and let the people decide who should be running for office. I mean why on earth should the tax payers support candidates that are so way off base no one is going to vote for them? And why on earth should we no longer make politicians work to get the contributions they get. I mean they are so busy as it is....not.

 

[MtnBiker]

Could you not also argue that banning flag burning, the patriotic act and the electoral college are all unconstitutional and should not be allowed? No. They are allowed because they help our society and make the United States work better.

There is not a ban on flag burning, one may argue that the patriotic act is unconstitutional and that debate will continue. I am very interested how someone could argue that the electoral college is unconstitutional.

SMB you have pruposed that only millionaires are elected to Federal offices and that mandatory public financing would be much better but have failed to explain just how that public financing would be enacted.

 

[dilloduck]

public financing has so many flaws, not to mention it violates virtually every amendment of the constitution.

there are poor people who go on to political sucess, it just doesnt happen as often anymore.

Im wondering how Washington and Jefferson and others would view your idea that rich people are no good at governing?

The BEST and ONLY way to make people accountable for their political leadership is to make govt smaller, and give more and more authority to those at local levels. PERIOD.

EVERY attempt at campaign finance laws gives me a robust laughter deep down in my belly...

Me too---capitalism is way more powerful than a democracy any day. A good group of capitalists can buy a good and decent sized democracy these days. :happy2:

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I fail to see how prohibiting large contributions that deterimine elections is an infringment on your right to speak out. Could you not also argue that banning flag burning, the patriotic act and the electoral college are all unconstitutional and should not be allowed? No. They are allowed because they help our society and make the United States work better. So why is it so hard to make the same exception for campaign financing?

Prohibiting large contributions is a law aimed at a specific group. The electoral college isnt, and besides, was inacted by the writers of the constitution, so I would defer to THEIR opinion on the matter.

Flag burning, if banned, would apply to all equally, unlike your proposed prohibiition on large contributions. I cannot comment on the patriot act, having not read it, but I would agree with the poster who claims it is still in debate, and, if it applies equally to all, it would fall under that category in my defense of it, if I defend it at all, which I am NOT at this point in time.

Something that makes the US work better, and helps society is a bogus arguement. One could make the same claim for a benevolent dictator.

Now, I have responded to ALL of your statements, but you have only responded to SOME Of mine. I assume this means you admit those you didnt respond to are true?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Me too---capitalism is way more powerful than a democracy any day. A good group of capitalists can buy a good and decent sized democracy these days. :happy2:

I sense the sarcasm , but Im not sure where you are going with this

are we in the beginning of a debate? Or are you in agreement with me ?

hahahhah, oh well, its all fun eh?

 

[theHawk]

Let me get this straight, you want equal public funding for all those that want to run for an office? Will there be a limit to how many poeple can get the funding? Our TAX dollars are supposed to support what....2...3....10...100 people running for the same office all equally? Who determines who does and does not get the funding? What happens if that person is a liberal? Gee I wonder how many conservatives would get denied, and vice versa. You can see where this is going and how corrupt the whole system would become real fast. There is no way in hell I would want ANY of my tax dollars to go to some liberal's campaign fund. What if some Islamic terrorist wanted to run for office? We supposed to give them our tax dollars too?

This is the most asinine idea ever.