I admit i was wrong.

[2aguy]

I'm not sure if this would work, but how about each candidate has the same maximum amount of money to carry a campaign, whether it is self funded or donations. Maybe a $50 million cap. So each campaign has to decide where their money goes: travel to speech sites, commercial ads, luxury hotels, staff workers, etc.

There should be a fund and distributed evenly among the candidates.

Wrong.....I do not want any more tax money going to greedy politicians who now want us to subsidize their greed and corruption so they don't even have to fund their own campaigns...why is that such a hard concept for people to understand?

 

[defcon4]

Wrong.....I do not want any more tax money going to greedy politicians who now want us to subsidize their greed and corruption so they don't even have to fund their own campaigns...why is that such a hard concept for people to understand?

Who said it was tax money?

 

[2aguy]

How would it be decided who gets the funds?

LBJ went into office as a poor congressman and came out a millionaire. He didn't do it by hard work.

Distributed evenly among all eligible candidates. All parties from the same hat.

again.....You want to give up your hard earned money, to give to the very people you are complaining about being corrupt and greedy so that they can use your money to get elected and stay in office so they can steal more of your money, become more powerful and take more of your money....

And that makes sense to you?

They want tax payer financed campaigns because it gives more power to the guy already in office....

If they all get the same amount of money the new guy gets the short end of the stick. The guy in office gets an office budget, an office staff, he has immediate access to the media and his constituency and he already has connections to the people who can grease the wheels to getting re-elected....all things the new guy will not have...

that is why these greedy, scumbag politicians want tax payer funded campaigns.....and they will still get outside money...

 

[2aguy]

Wrong.....I do not want any more tax money going to greedy politicians who now want us to subsidize their greed and corruption so they don't even have to fund their own campaigns...why is that such a hard concept for people to understand?

Who said it was tax money?

and where else is it going to come from?

 

[defcon4]

Wrong.....I do not want any more tax money going to greedy politicians who now want us to subsidize their greed and corruption so they don't even have to fund their own campaigns...why is that such a hard concept for people to understand?

Who said it was tax money?

and where else is it going to come from?

Where is it coming from now? I sure don't give a penny on my tax return.

 

[2aguy]

LOL... that little blurb out of context never did get off the ground now did it? Care to discuss Trump's attitude toward women?

LOL.

How about hilary's....and how she led the team to silence the women bill raped and sexually assaulted...she didn't write books or fantasize...she helped in a criminal conspiracy....

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I really don't see why a person's right to participate in the political process is cut off after they make so much money. I always thought that 'liberals' believed in equal rights and that rich and poor should be treated the same by the law. I totally agree that rich donors do determine how the democratic party operates but the cure seems to deny someone their right to participate in it. There is no point in regulating because the political parties who live off of these donations are not going police themselves over the matter. Think about this for a moment. Any special prosecutor that is assigned to investigate any violation of these rules is either a democrat or a republican and since both parties need these donations to live they are not going to cut themselves off. I think it is better to allow these donations to be legal that way the process will become more transperent. They will report their donations in an honest manor.

 

[eagle7_31]

I'm not sure if this would work, but how about each candidate has the same maximum amount of money to carry a campaign, whether it is self funded or donations. Maybe a $50 million cap. So each campaign has to decide where their money goes: travel to speech sites, commercial ads, luxury hotels, staff workers, etc.

There should be a fund and distributed evenly among the candidates.

Wrong.....I do not want any more tax money going to greedy politicians who now want us to subsidize their greed and corruption so they don't even have to fund their own campaigns...why is that such a hard concept for people to understand?

The issues of present day campaign finance can ALL be traced back to the Campaign Finance Act of 1974 which was passed by a Democrat Congress over Gerald Ford's veto. Yes that was caused by the Nixon 72 campaign abuses but as we have seen the Democrats as usual took a bad problem and made it worse.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Do you know what is the worst part about these campaign finance laws? They are used by politician to punish their rivals for the same thing they do themselves. This makes it difficult for any young upstart to get anywhere because if they make a mistake they can do serious jail time. The whole thing should not be regulated.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I'm not sure if this would work, but how about each candidate has the same maximum amount of money to carry a campaign, whether it is self funded or donations. Maybe a $50 million cap. So each campaign has to decide where their money goes: travel to speech sites, commercial ads, luxury hotels, staff workers, etc.

There should be a fund and distributed evenly among the candidates.

Wrong.....I do not want any more tax money going to greedy politicians who now want us to subsidize their greed and corruption so they don't even have to fund their own campaigns...why is that such a hard concept for people to understand?

The issues of present day campaign finance can ALL be traced back to the Campaign Finance Act of 1974 which was passed by a Democrat Congress over Gerald Ford's veto. Yes that was caused by the Nixon 72 campaign abuses but as we have seen the Democrats as usual took a bad problem and made it worse.

Government solutions tend to create three new problems for everyone one it tries to solve.

 

[eagle7_31]

Do you know what is the worst part about these campaign finance laws? They are used by politician to punish their rivals for the same thing they do themselves. This makes it difficult for any young upstart to get anywhere because if they make a mistake they can do serious jail time. The whole thing should not be regulated.

This won't happen but House candidates should raise money only from their districts, senate candidates from their states. county, state and national GOP and Democrat committees can certainly assist. Those should be the guide lines. The PACs have pretty much wiped out the political parties as financial resources and that is the problem. Also some lobbying reform would help also. Not to restrict one's ability to seek redress from elected members, but a lot of the lobbying perks need to be done away with.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

What about a progressive tax on political donations. Small donations are not taxed but large ones are. That should diminish large donations by a lot. It works with everything else such as the economy...

 

[eagle7_31]

What about a progressive tax on political donations. Small donations are not taxed but large ones are. That should diminish large donations by a lot. It works with everything else such as the economy...

that's a thought. Might help the situation.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I at one time thought the supreme court was right in Citizens United by letting billionaire super pacs run wild. I now see how that has allowed a few bilionaires to control the political system and buy puppets like rubio to do what they are told. 2016 is the year we can tell the rubio feces eaters to GO TO HELL.


And stay there

That is awesome! Now....are you ready to ensure that it gets successfully repealed by voting for congresspeople who will repeal it and a liberal POTUS
who will nominate people to the SC who will uphold it?

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

Moron

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]