Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Running for office is expensive and getting rapidly more so. The average race for Congress costs $2-13 million, making it nearly impossible for working stiffs to run for office and win. Should something be done about it?
Maybe you should ask why someone would spend that much money to get elected. The most likely answer is that they can use their position to earn that and more back.
We like to think politicians have the best interest of the country in mind when the truth is, its their bank account they are more concerned with.
Mike, you really need to learn to form non bias poll questions. In this case not only bias but offensive to intelligent people that may not have wealth. The size of your wallet is no indication to the abilities of your brain.
As for the question at hand I would have to say no to publicly funded campaigns. First and foremost you would have to limit who gets that funding, every Tom, Dick and Harry that applies cannot have it granted because it will just get abused. Limiting it will lead to further abuse because the two parties will set it up to insure they get the lions share. Equally important is I have no interest in supporting a campaign with my tax dollars that I disagree with.
I voted 'yes' to the poll question ~ "Yes, its important that ordinary Americans can run for office and not be put off by the costs
Having publicly funded campaigns is a start however does not address the root or underlying cause.
From an interview with former President Jimmy Carter in 2015 re: Citizens United decision: "unlimited money in politics violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now, it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. Senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over.”
A government of, by, & for the 1% is a violation against 99% of the people, it's not OK.
Running for office is expensive and getting rapidly more so. The average race for Congress costs $2-13 million, making it nearly impossible for working stiffs to run for office and win. Should something be done about it?
AMENDMENT XXVIII
Section 1
No person shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to the campaign or a candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure who shall not be legally eligible to vote for the candidate for political office or to vote for the ballot issue or ballot measure.
Section 2
Any person who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount involved in the violation.
Section 3
The Congress, the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That's all you need.
If you're running for township trustee, the only people who can contribute are people who live in the township.
If you're running for mayor or city council, the only people who can contribute are people who live in the city.
If you're running for a county office, the only people who can contribute are people in the county.
People running for State legislature offices or a federal representative, only those who live in your district can contribute.
Only people living in a State can contribute to the campaigns of Senators and State gubernatorial or cabinet positions.
If you have a ballot issue like for gambling or marihuana or anything else, people who live in other States can't contribute money and run political ads.
Note that corporations, private companies, think-tanks, policy groups, political action committees and unions cannot contribute, since none are eligible to vote.
It would over-ride Citizens United, which was a terrible decision by the Supreme Court.
No person shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to the campaign or a candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure who shall not be legally eligible to vote for the candidate for political office or to vote for the ballot issue or ballot measure.
Section 2
Any person who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount involved in the violation.
Section 3
The Congress, the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That's all you need.
If you're running for township trustee, the only people who can contribute are people who live in the township.
If you're running for mayor or city council, the only people who can contribute are people who live in the city.
If you're running for a county office, the only people who can contribute are people in the county.
People running for State legislature offices or a federal representative, only those who live in your district can contribute.
Only people living in a State can contribute to the campaigns of Senators and State gubernatorial or cabinet positions.
If you have a ballot issue like for gambling or marihuana or anything else, people who live in other States can't contribute money and run political ads.
Note that corporations, private companies, think-tanks, policy groups, political action committees and unions cannot contribute, since none are eligible to vote.
It would over-ride Citizens United, which was a terrible decision by the Supreme Court.
No person shall contribute money, or goods or services in kind, or tangible property to the campaign or a candidate for political office, or to a ballot issue or ballot measure who shall not be legally eligible to vote for the candidate for political office or to vote for the ballot issue or ballot measure.
Section 2
Any person who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount involved in the violation.
Section 3
The Congress, the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That's all you need.
If you're running for township trustee, the only people who can contribute are people who live in the township.
If you're running for mayor or city council, the only people who can contribute are people who live in the city.
If you're running for a county office, the only people who can contribute are people in the county.
People running for State legislature offices or a federal representative, only those who live in your district can contribute.
Only people living in a State can contribute to the campaigns of Senators and State gubernatorial or cabinet positions.
If you have a ballot issue like for gambling or marihuana or anything else, people who live in other States can't contribute money and run political ads.
Note that corporations, private companies, think-tanks, policy groups, political action committees and unions cannot contribute, since none are eligible to vote.
It would over-ride Citizens United, which was a terrible decision by the Supreme Court.
This would not solve the problem of 'issue ads' run by organizations independent of the campaign. And if a law were passed to ban such ads, it would run into the same First Amendment problem that McCain-Feingold (struck down in CU) did.
The solution to the problem of campaign spending is to remove the incentive by returning to a limited form of gov't, which we had until the early 20th century. No massive money and power in DC would mean no (or at least less) incentive for those who spend in order to gain access to said money and power.
No interdiction strategy will work anyway, as we have seen both with booze prohibition and the 'war on drugs.' Neither worked; the trade was just driven underground. Same thing will happen w/ influence peddling if we try to interdict it.
btw some people (like me) who live in midnight blue districts like to donate to red candidates outside of our districts or even our states. Vice versa, I'm sure there are liberals living in red districts who donate outside.
Why should we be shut out of the process just because we live in districts that don't comport with our beliefs?
AFAIK candidates have to report out-of-district contributions to the FEC. If you don't like candidates getting out-of-district donations, check their FEC filings and vote accordingly.
Make all elected offices ceremonial, that way any old boob can run (as oppsed to the wealthy, well connected boobs) and it wont matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
