How many of you on OPP would support public funding for political campains? To eliminate the influence of special interest money.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

To eliminate the influence of special interest money.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Bad Bob wrote:

To eliminate the influence of special interest money.

Neither law(s) nor public funding would prevent the influence of special interest money. They would only make it somewhat more difficult. :roll: However, I would favor the repeal of 'Citizen's United'. That is not likely to happen...too much money involved.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Bad Bob wrote:

To eliminate the influence of special interest money.

I would. Even if such a pipedream actually came true, I've no doubt that the lawyers/politicians/bankers would quickly find or create loopholes that would allow the rich to continue buying policy. The rich, no doubt, would consider such a move as stealing from them and I've said repeatedly, that one iron clad rule of thumb is - you just don't steal from the rich - ever.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

slatten49 wrote:

Neither law(s) nor public funding would prevent the influence of special interest money. They would only make it somewhat more difficult. :roll: However, I would favor the repeal of 'Citizen's United'. That is not likely to happen...too much money involved.

It would be a damn good start.

JMHO Loc: Utah

Bad Bob wrote:

To eliminate the influence of special interest money.

Unconstitutional.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

JMHO wrote:

Unconstitutional.

Ya think bribery is constitutional?

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Bad Bob wrote:

To eliminate the influence of special interest money.

Nice idea except for reality -

- it would entrench the current political parties precluding a 3rd party
- it would entrench incumbents who have plenty of public resources to deploy in campaigns disguised as constituent communications
- it would allow almost every "independent" organization - starting with media - an outsize role in influencing public opinion.
- expanding government to control government seems like a bad idea.

JMHO Loc: Utah

Bad Bob wrote:

Ya think bribery is constitutional?

Get real, moron.

JMHO Loc: Utah

Dave wrote:

Nice idea except for reality -

- it would entrench the current political parties precluding a 3rd party
- it would entrench incumbents who have plenty of public resources to deploy in campaigns disguised as constituent communications
- it would allow almost every "independent" organization - starting with media - an outsize role in influencing public opinion.
- expanding government to control government seems like a bad idea.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Dave wrote:

Nice idea except for reality -

- it would entrench the current political parties precluding a 3rd party
- it would entrench incumbents who have plenty of public resources to deploy in campaigns disguised as constituent communications
- it would allow almost every "independent" organization - starting with media - an outsize role in influencing public opinion.
- expanding government to control government seems like a bad idea.

What do you have that's any better?

donald43

Not I, my friend. I prefer to exercise my personal choices by financially supporting individuals. Use that money to build a southern border fence...better purpose.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Bad Bob wrote:

What do you have that's any better?

The Constitution of the United States of America

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Dave wrote:

Nice idea except for reality -

- it would entrench the current political parties precluding a 3rd party
- it would entrench incumbents who have plenty of public resources to deploy in campaigns disguised as constituent communications
- it would allow almost every "independent" organization - starting with media - an outsize role in influencing public opinion.
- expanding government to control government seems like a bad idea.

All those things are happening now, so what exactly would change? Public funding of campaigns, would not only limit what each candidate could spend, but would ALSO guarantee the same amount for each candidate, thus leveling the playing field.

As to the media, what do you think all the millions of dollars of campaign money are being spent on? The media outlet ONWERS would be the loudest voices against such a move, as it would mean a loss of billions of dollars in revenues.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

lpnmajor wrote:

All those things are happening now, so what exactly would change? Public funding of campaigns, would not only limit what each candidate could spend, but would ALSO guarantee the same amount for each candidate, thus leveling the playing field.

As to the media, what do you think all the millions of dollars of campaign money are being spent on? The media outlet ONWERS would be the loudest voices against such a move, as it would mean a loss of billions of dollars in revenues.

If all those things are happening now and public financing wouldn't change them, why public finance.

Limiting what a candidate can spend is not the same as leveling the playing field - all those other organizations that would want to provide indirect support would be able to do it.

Incumbents have a public forum, so having incumbents and challengers spending the same amount wouldn't level the field - it would tilt it.

As to revenue for the media - here's couple of simple observations:
- the "public money" would be spent with the media - so no lose there
- the media would gain even more power by using their platform to support one or the other candidate via editorial comments
- there are many other organizations, be they unions, corporations, or individuals that can use their own means to get out messages in support of whomever they'd like.

She Wolf Loc: Currently Georgia

lpnmajor wrote:

All those things are happening now, so what exactly would change? Public funding of campaigns, would not only limit what each candidate could spend, but would ALSO guarantee the same amount for each candidate, thus leveling the playing field.

As to the media, what do you think all the millions of dollars of campaign money are being spent on? The media outlet ONWERS would be the loudest voices against such a move, as it would mean a loss of billions of dollars in revenues.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: