How should we finance elections?

[Hamlette]

I really don't know the answer and hope someone here does.

First off we eliminate corporations and limit everyone to some reasonable amount. The current limits for individuals seem okay.

But what about someone financing his or her own campaign? Should George Soros be allowed to spend all he wants to get elected? Mitt Romney?

And what about interest groups? If we take the money away from the campaign, won't they just spend it on "non affiliated" ads like the Swift Boaters? But shouldn't Move On or Planned Parenthood be allowed to run ads saying what the GOP platform will mean?

Ideas? Or have I just missed the answer?

[MadHound]

1. Publicly financed elections, every office from dog catcher to president

Candidates get X amount of free air/cable time, get X amount of money, and only get to run for office for X number of months.

[Hamlette]

4. so Move On can't run ads?

I want my side to be able to do it but not their side. Not sure what is fair.

I agree it should be publicly financed but what about interest groups?

I guess we'd have to disallow it which could be a problem.

[MadHound]

8. So you are not wanting a level playing field eh?

Sorry, no special interest groups, nothing like that. Simply public financing, and thus take corporate money out of our government. Isn't that worth more than looking after special interest groups' welfare?

[Aerows]

14. Easily solved

Limit the amount that PAC's and other orgs can spend, too. The point is to minimize ANY organization from having too much monetary power in the elections.

If they want to get the message out, they use volunteers. Manpower could be unlimited, as long as it's strictly volunteer. Monetary power, however, is strictly limited. You don't have to go on TV or the radio to get out a message. Person to person is best, anyway.

[Jnana]

7. The problem with public financing relates to the state of the public's finances.

[MadHound]

9. Well, gee Wally,

Put an end to these illegal, immoral wars and we would have plenty of money, not just for elections, but other things, like education, help for the poor, etc. etc. After all, not spending three billion dollars a day on war frees up a lot of funds to do a lot of good.

[Jnana]

13. I completely agree, but the last time I checked, we had not

Put an end to these illegal, immoral wars...

And despite our pending exit from Iraq, it appears that those $$$ will simply be redirected to other areas of the region.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?_r=2

[timtom]

18. Damn! You've been readin' my mail!

That's just what I was going to say.

(Except without the "Wally" part...)

[MrSlayer]

2. Public financed.

Each candidate for every office gets an equal amount of airtime and money.

[begin_within]

3. Now that churches have metastasized into the public sphere, tax churches and use that money.

[Change has come]

6. I agree.

1000%.

[RegieRocker]

11. No way. We need to go back to separation of church and state.

[MFrohike]

5. Good question

I think banning donations, either from the giver side or the taker side or both, is the first step. Elections on all levels would be government funded. As a practical matter, Congress would have to appropriate a reasonable amount of money per state, and probably per locality, for campaigning. How to fund it? One method could be licensing fees for radio and TV. I don't know how much of the cost that would cover, but it's pretty clear that campaigning is closely linked to mass media.

Indirect campaigning, or soft money, is a tougher question. I don't like the idea of banning it outright. That's a pretty big slap at the 1st amendment. I think a provision barring any organization that operates on a for-profit basis or that has any affiliation (family, friend, colleague, agent, client, etc.) with a for-profit organization should be banned from political advertising. That's a huge swath of speech, but I don't regard a company campaigning for friendly representation to be true political speech. I think it's more in line with commercial speech and that has clear limits. I think some sort of time limits for advertising by groups not mentioned above would be in order. Maybe along the lines of McCain-Feingold, with its pre-primary and pre-election restrictions.

Of course, all of this will have to be done via constitutional amendment. The first section could provide the ban on contributions, the second the mandate to fund elections, the third to bar for-profit groups' advertising, the fourth to establish that Congress can set limits on when advertising can be done, and the fifth to state that Congress has the legislative power (this may be redundant).

[City Lights]

10. Two things come to mind immediately..public financing and shorter season.

Many of our politicians seems to be in perpetual campaign mode, especially those in the House.

[RegieRocker]

12. Yep. Spot on.

[meow2u3]

15. I propose a national lottery

If you want people, especially Republicans, to pay taxes, make them want to pay taxes. The best way to do that is to institute a national lottery, with jackpot starting at $100M and possibly getting into the billions, and "junior jackpots" starting at a million. Winners would be responsible for all income taxes.

Do you realize how much money would go into Federal government coffers if we had a national lottery? With 300M people in this country, and tickets at a dollar a pot, the deficit would not only be fixed, there would be a surplus, with more than enough public money to finance campaigns.

All lottery proceeds would go to paying out winnings and public campaign financing, leaving tax revenue from income and other sources to go to traditional government functions, and not one red cent of lottery proceeds shall be allocated to subsidize corporate interests, including professional lobbyists. Impose severe criminal penalties for misappropriation of public campaign funds.

[LWolf]

16. It's an easy answer. Why don't you know?

100% public financing, with a set time limit, beginning with when people announce a candidacy.

Also to include guaranteed equal, and equally neutral, press time, and debates that allow every debater to answer every question, with guaranteed equal talk time.

Add to that IRV, and you are on your way to an actually representative democracy.

[anamandujano]

17. A "Election and Voter" channel

where, like Youtube, all messages, debates etc will be saved and cataloged for all to access at any time. This could air for months leading up to the elections.

There could be a separate part for any third parties (not real party to vote with) who want to debate or emphasize, where all spinners can go. If anyone can't listen to the candidates and need someone to spin their minds, they can go there.

A PACT hour or two, scheduled and info on who put the money there.

Of course it would take some time for a voter to inform themselves. Most probably get their info from the bought and paid for MSM.

It would be great to get the MSM out of the election process totally.

Anyway, you get the drift. This would take care of the advertising campaigns. The only winners there are the media companies.

When candidates need to travel, a small fund can be arranged for that. All the planes flying around with the MSM spinners on junkets is disgusting. It would be better to have citizen tweeters to keep track of the events, volunteers.

Candidates shouldn't be offering free food and entertainment for their events. It should originate at the particular city. It should be like a State Fair event, a gathering. Invitations should be sent from the town candidates need to visit. Candidates can request invitations. They can all speak at the same weekend event.

And then they're the voting machines. All of the above is irrelevant.