Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Jimmy Carter calls for return to publicly financed elections [View all]w4rma
(31,700 posts)4. No. Though Bernie Sanders raised his funds from small donors, he raised too much money to qualify.
The matching funds limits are too small to be useful, currently. Bernie raised more than his maximum allotted in a single month (without holding a single fundraiser).
General Election Limit: $96.14 million
Overall Primary Limit: $48.07 million
Candidates also must agree to:
Limit campaign spending for all primary elections to $10 million plus a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).6 This is called the national spending limit.
Limit campaign spending in each state to $200,000 plus COLA, or to a specified amount based on the number of voting age individuals in the state (plus COLA), whichever is greater.
Limit spending from personal funds to $50,000.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#Primary
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
69 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
Bwas Bernie Sanders going to take public funding for his General Election campaign?
brooklynite
Jun 2016
#3
No. Though Bernie Sanders raised his funds from small donors, he raised too much money to qualify.
w4rma
Jun 2016
#4
Each candidate, no matter the party should be funded equally. No private money in elections, none!
Dont call me Shirley
Jun 2016
#39
In addition, there should be accurate exit polling done for all major elections...
Raster
Jun 2016
#6
He's right, of course, but this nation is too far down the rabbit hole to recover
tabasco
Jun 2016
#9
"Publicly subsidized" elections would be a more accurate term. Those fund raising drives
w4rma
Jun 2016
#12
The public is ALREADY PAYING for elections THROUGH THE HIGH COSTS OF insurance, education, prisons..
vkkv
Jun 2016
#17
Publicly funded elections would make politicians less corrupt - but that's not what politicians
Little Tich
Jun 2016
#19
Jimmy was a good President who got unfairly swamped by the times. But he's been a great former ...
marble falls
Jun 2016
#22
I think we can pare it down even tighter. The policies that "help" the 1% won't keep a total ....
marble falls
Jun 2016
#50
But what is left out of the story is that to get anything moving it will take lots of money now
tonyt53
Jun 2016
#26
Campaigns should be structured, like a good hiring process. Thorough, as fair as possible, etc.
TryLogic
Jun 2016
#27
A K-State math prof's analysis says Kansas almost certainly did not reelect Brownback. Of course
tblue37
Jun 2016
#62
The airwaves are public, tv, radio and internet should be forced to provide an equal amount of
Dont call me Shirley
Jun 2016
#37
Why haven't I heard a word attacking Republins on this in Democratic campaigns?
Craig234
Jun 2016
#44
"Publicly financed elections" == public money *added* to the corporate schmiergeld. n/t
Old Union Guy
Jun 2016
#60
K & R. Excellent plan President Carter. Many thanks, all the best and be well.
appalachiablue
Jun 2016
#66