Kerry platform--public election funding voluntary

[Senior citizen]

I looked at Kerry's platform, and he advocates publicly funded elections for those who wish to accept it.

In other words, if you accept public funding, you may not accept any other campaign contributions. But if you do not wish to accept public funding, you can get all the corporate campaign contributions you want.

To me, this sounds like an ordinary person could run a minimally-funded campaign, while all the gazillionaires could spend as much as they want.

And I sent Kerry money? What could I have been thinking?

[BayCityProgressive]

1. you didn't think Kerry

would eb a real reformer did you? He has had 20 years in the senate to make reform and never has. Now all of a sudden he cares about healthcare. I will probably vote for him, only to get rid of Bush.

[TexasSissy]

2. I think this is the current "reformed" campaign elections fund bill that

was enacted when...last year? It was proposed by McCain and someone else.

If you didn't support Kerry, do you have someone else in mind who has a clear shot of winning against Bush? If so, please let us all know.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. McCain-Feingold did not provide any public financing

[ibegurpard]

3. this is not reform

i would oppose something like this because it would be useless.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. there is no one else that can beat him

that is the only reason i will most likely vote for him. He sure isnt impressive in any other regard.

[ibegurpard]

5. I said nothing about supporting or not supporting Kerry

I said this is a useless solution to a very big problem.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Corporations can't donate to campaigns.

:boring:

[sandnsea]

8. What was Wellstone thinking?

He and Kerry introduced the Clean Money Campaign Reform legislation.

Don't you suppose it has something to do with the Constitution and freedom of speech and freedom to spend your money any old way you want to? Any legislation that didn't allow an individual to do what they chose with their own money, whether run for office or give it to somebody else who was running for office, would be struck down as unConstititutional.

People will go to any lengths to attack Kerry. For what purpose, I'll never understand. I guess Democrats really are doomed, if we can't even get together when faced with the worst administration in history.

[Senior citizen]

9. Freedom of speech: Since when is money speech?

Edit: typo (extra "s" in represent) and added caps for emphasis.

Sure, I know it is now. But I don't see any freedom of money clause in the Constitution.

Freedom of speech was intended to permit ordinary citizens to have a voice in government.

If giving money to one candidate effectively silences another who doesn't has as much money, as it certainly does when there is no Fairness Doctrine and a candidate cannot afford to purchase time to respond to an attack, it isn't freedom of speech, it is freedom to suppress speech, stifle democracy, and silence the middle- and low-income candidates who would be the only ones to represent the majority of Americans. Believe it or not, only a small fraction of people in this country are rich.

We're together on Kerry. I donated to him and will vote for him. I'm trying to register voters and convince others to vote for him. But I would like to see more non-gazillionaire candidates. I would like to see candidates who represent my views have a fair chance at running for office and an even playing field. I'm tired of "the best democracy money can buy," and I want a government that isn't for sale to the highest bidder.

What I'm trying to say is that if he wants to leave it open for gazillionaires to use all the money they have and can raise from friends and family to oppose publically-funded candidates, then publically-funded candidates won't stand a chance. I donated to Kerry in part because of requests from his campaign for money to respond to puke attacks. How does he propose that a publically-funded candidate would be able to respond to attacks from a gazillionaire if the public funding is voluntary instead of mandatory? If he doesn't think that non-gazillionaire candidates should be able to respond to attacks, why should I have helped HIM to do so?

I'm not knocking Kerry, I'm questioning part of his proposed platform. I'm hoping that since the convention hasn't happened yet, the platform isn't carved in stone and might be open to criticism.

[sandnsea]

10. freedom to spend my own money

freedom to use it to advocate whatever political agenda I want to advocate, including running for office. That's freedom of speech. It's been upheld by the Supreme Court on a number of occasions.

The Kerry-Wellstone legislation is very similar, if not exactly the same, as Maine's Clean Money legislation, supported by the Green Party. http://weblogs.hcrhs.k12.nj.us/ddetampl/stories/storyReader$70

"The system is completely voluntary and candidates who do not wish to participate are able to raise and spend private money for their campaigns, as they do today."

http://www.publicampaign.org/congress/howitworks.htm

"I'm not knocking Kerry, I'm questioning part of his proposed platform. I'm hoping that since the convention hasn't happened yet, the platform isn't carved in stone and might be open to criticism."

Heard that line one too many times around here.

[Senior citizen]

12. Gee, big donors get access,

and small donors like me, who actually donate a larger percentage of their incomes than the big donors do, are supposed to just shut up?

Thanks, but I've already got that kind of system with the pukes in power.

If you don't want any change at all, why are YOU voting for Kerry? You just want a different face on the same fascist policies?

I know that the pukes aren't open to criticism, and won't listen to the vast majority of the electorate. If the Democrats can't do any better than that, I'm wasting my vote.

The Supreme Court is known for many rulings. It once recognized Blacks as only 3/5 of a person, then turned around and ruled that a bunch of contracts that constituted a corporation was a person. If you can't tell a person when that person stands before you, and think a bunch of paper is a person, what does that make you, wise and just? After the (s)election of * by SCOTUS, they don't have any respect among non-puke legal scholars, or from the rest of the world. Nor do we, since we try to "export democracy" when we can't even hold fair elections ourselves.

I want every candidate for office, no matter how much money they have, to have equal opportunities to reach out to voters and to counter false attacks by opponents. And I think that since Kerry, who happens to be wealthy, had to ask low-income people like me to make big sacrifices so that he could respond to the puke attack machine, he should understand the problem and make totally publically funded elections part of his platform.

I have to respect your right to spend your money on mansions and fancy cars while others are homeless, but I don't think free speech is just another commodity that should only be available to those who can afford it, nor do I think political office or the right to represent the people should be just another commodity. And while you may have heard these arguments a million times before, to quote Maxine Waters, "I don't care." Representative government is still worth fighting for.


On edit: typo "do" instead of "to"

[sandnsea]

14. Vote Green

Get the same campaign finance reform backed by Kerry. Sorry, it's America. In America, you get to spend your money the way you want to, including financing your own election campaign.

[Still_Loves_John]

11. Dean refused matching funds

Just because someone's campaign has money doesn't necessarily mean that it came from corporations.

[Senior citizen]

13. True. (n/t)