baxter

During a presidential election millions and even billions are spent on campaigns for advertising... The only way to raise that kind of money other than having the government pay for it or to have big businesses pay for it. Being as the State doesn't cover campaign expenses you end up having candidates who have to get businesses to pay for their campaign. And because of this you end up with politicians who won't make any significant reforms and who just support the status quo (Why would the rich businessmen want any change of the system that got them so rich?).

Therefore, shouldn't the government cover campaign expenses so that we have a fair system where anyone can become president and not just having two parties who are basically two factions of the "Business Party"?

__________________
"Cogito ergo sum"

Brother Oz

I don't the government should cover them, because then you'll have lots of people who no one would vote for get loads of money of the taxpayers.
However, you ought to have much more stringent restrictions on donations, and most importantly ban TV political advertisements.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

baxter

Well my solution would be that the candidates would get a certain amount of money from the government to cover their campaign and then it would be out of their own pocket. And there would be restrictions on how much candidates can spend. The amount of money they would be given would be in relation what percentage the got on the elections: under 5% a certain amount, from 5 to 15% another amount...(So candidates who didn't expect to get many votes would not spend more than the amount they thought they would get.)
And I completely agree with you on the TV ad ban.

__________________
"Cogito ergo sum"

perdidochas

You forget about the grass roots groups that assist.

Personally, I think the government should stay out of it. It's not their business. To some degree, the amount of money you can raise is a reflection of the strength of your ideas and support.

However, that said, I think we should have total transparency in campaign donations. Every penny given to a campaign should be associated with a human. If an organization gives to a campaign, every member of the organization should be associated with the donation. The only limitation I would put is that for-profit corporations shouldn't be able to donate to any campaign or to a group that donates to a campaign.

perdidochas

So if I want to donate to a campaign I wouldn't be allowed to?

Why? That would be a blatant violation of freedom of the press.


Man, you have no respect for the First Amendment.

baxter

You would be able to join the candidates political party and give money yes. But there would be a limit on how much you could give.



I have to admit I don't see how this is a violation of the freedom of the press unless you meant that the candidates wouldn't be able spend to much money on ads . This is to ensure that all candidates have the same chances and to limit the amount of favoritism through the media. Because unless you are of a hugely rich family or are just ensuring businesses that you are going to keep the current situation going, you can't get any funding. You said earlier that the amount of funding a candidate gets represents how good they're ideas are but you didn't ask for who: For the big business owners or the poorer people,more representative of the population.

__________________
"Cogito ergo sum"

perdidochas

So you're saying that it would be against the law for me to put an ad in a paper endorsing a certain candidate? (it is now, but I'm against that idea). I should not have my freedom of political speech restricted.






Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Any law that restricts my freedom to put out political ads for the candidate of my choice, restricts my freedom of press.


For whoever. Also, the poor people are already being pandered to. They don't need any extra representation. Heck, most poor people receive government money and don't pay taxes.

The business owners think much more about the future and about the success of our country as a whole than the poor. Their views are at least as important as that of the poor. You seem to think only the poor should have a voice.

baxter

Obviously you aren't poor. This is exactly why people who aren't rich should be able to become president: because most rich people don't care about them.

Again, you are only looking from your point of view. What do you define as the success of a country: the fact that it has incredibly expensive fighter jets and other military gadgets, which is where billions of dollars go every year(even trillions) or that instead of investing in those things it cares for and helps the people in need in their country. And of course I think everybody should have in equal voice which isn't the case. The rich 5% run the country generally to the detriment of the poor.

__________________
"Cogito ergo sum"

perdidochas

Of course they do. I would bet that the rich are much more concerned about the poor, than vice versa. I don't read about rich people complaining about the poor. I do read about the poor complaining about the rich. WHy? THe rich are helping the poor.


Our country is successful because it allows those who truly want to succeed to succeed. Look at the Forbes 50 richest people--besides the Waltons (wal-mart heirs) most of the rest are people who started out as middle class.

People in need in this country get housing and food provided to them. They get health care provided to them. They get free education provided. What else can you ask for them? Should they all live in 2000 sq ft houses with pools?


Why should people that don't give up cigarettes when it's time to feed their kids have a say? The poor are not a noble oppressed group. They consist of people who choose a poor lifestyle--namely drugs and booze and slacking off. (BTW, my definition of poor consists of those in poverty, which currently (and for the past 10 yrs or so) consists of about 10-13% of the population). In 1959, the poverty rate was about 22%. It has almost halved.

The poor in America have it better than the middle class of most developing countries. Our poor's main food issue isn't starvation, it's obesity. Being poor here doesn't mean that you live in a shack with no running water, and an open sewer for a toilet.

Examples of how corporations are good for the poor:

1) Wal-Mart: It has increased the standard of living in this country, by reducing prices, not only in their stores, but in competitors as well.

2) Corporate farming has resulted in food prices being the smallest percentage of income than has occurred in history.

baxter

Would you mind continuing this debate in a thread called "Rich vs. Poor" being as we're going increasingly of the topic of the thread. Please check there for my answer.

__________________
"Cogito ergo sum"