View Poll Results: Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

Voters
52. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    17 32.69%
  • No

    35 67.31%
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 127

Thread: Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

  1. #111
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Well, considering how easy it is for incumbents to get elected right now, it actually does. By having term limits, once an incumbent has reached his limit, it forces both parties to run new candidates for that seat. That, in a way, provides equality every term limit.
    How easy? Considering the current uproar of the Tea Party, and against the establishment candidates, ranging from Sharon Angle to Christine O'Donnell, I think this is the worst time to be any sort of incumbent. And that addresses the problem of having new, more efficient candidates running for office, not the problem of having the most competent candidate voted in. Or at least to have a candidate voted in on his/her views rather than how much mud he/she slung.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  2. #112
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Not necessarily. People can PERCEIVE a causal relationship even when one doesn't exist. I've never seen any evidence to indicate that spending more money generates better electoral results...just that there is a correlation between the two.
    These people aren't perceiving anything. You're saying these campaign experts are common fools who go by their feelings. Not a chance.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #113
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Its not for the government to restrict those with the message and the support drawn to said message so that they cannot 'overwhelm' those with a weaker message and less support. The goverment is there to protect your right to free speech, not make sure that everyone has the same access to political advertising.
    Again, this isn't about a weaker message and less support, it is about different types of support. Consider the current political stances. We have Republicans who favor big business, and are more likely to vote for bills that help big businesses. Then we have Democrats, who are considered "socialists" for voting to regulate business. Republicans are more likely to be given donations by big businesses right? And the potential for those donations to be larger then that of say a middle-class American is very real. So, the Democrat might have more people behind him/her, but still cannot compete with the obscenely large donations of the corporations. And therefore, the Republican will find it easier to spread all the disinformation he/she wants about the Democrat. While it is also happens with the Democrat spreading more lies, that is just as bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So what? Groups, special interest or otherwise, are just masses of individuals; groups have the same right to donate to campaigns as individuals because each individual in that group has that right.
    Those are limited groups, correct? You don't see S corporations with thousands of stockholders right? Because of limited liability, a corporation can have more funds to throw at politicians then the same amount of middle-class americans trying to support another candidate. This inequality is the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Limiting how much you can give to a party/candidate limits your right to political free speech. If that speech, expressed through some media other than money, were similarly restricted, all in the interest of making thngs 'fair', you and eveyone else that supports your position here would have a cow.
    Limiting how much money you can give limits the candidate's ability to afford commercials, and do other things that cost money. Money is the problem in election season because of the inequalities I stated earlier. Limited liability creates this problem. And don't accuse me of something you don't know, you're just going to end up looking stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So what? Should a college grad be limited in his written expression of support for a candidate because someone who dropped out of school in 8th grade cannot compete with him with his writings?
    A college graduate has more education then a high school drop out, true, but you're drawing an incorrect comparison. The right comparison would be in terms of an inequality to publish their messages. Both the dropout and the graduate have the ability to publish their messages, the difference is in their ability to articulate the message. In the issue I'm talking about, it is not about the ability to articulate the message (that depends entirely on the candidate), I'm talking about the ability to publish the message in the first place.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  4. #114
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Again, this isn't about a weaker message and less support, it is about different types of support. Consider the current political stances. We have Republicans who favor big business, and are more likely to vote for bills that help big businesses. Then we have Democrats, who are considered "socialists" for voting to regulate business. Republicans are more likely to be given donations by big businesses right? And the potential for those donations to be larger then that of say a middle-class American is very real. So, the Democrat might have more people behind him/her, but still cannot compete with the obscenely large donations of the corporations. And therefore, the Republican will find it easier to spread all the disinformation he/she wants about the Democrat. While it is also happens with the Democrat spreading more lies, that is just as bad.
    None of this changes what I said - and, in fact, it worsens your position as you arent looking to level the plaing fields in terms of campaingin power, you're looking to level it in terms of election results.
    That should be clearly and utterly unacceptabe to anyone; why it isnt to you baffles me.

    Those are limited groups, correct? You don't see S corporations with thousands of stockholders right? Because of limited liability, a corporation can have more funds to throw at politicians then the same amount of middle-class americans trying to support another candidate. This inequality is the problem.
    Its not for the government to restrict those with the message and the support drawn to said message so that they cannot 'overwhelm' those with a weaker message and less support.

    Limiting how much money you can give limits the candidate's ability to afford commercials, and do other things that cost money. Money is the problem in election season because of the inequalities I stated earlier. Limited liability creates this problem. And don't accuse me of something you don't know, you're just going to end up looking stupid.
    Noen of this changes anything I said. If that speech, expressed through some media other than money, were similarly restricted, all in the interest of making thngs 'fair', you and eveyone else that supports your position here would have a cow.

    A college graduate has more education then a high school drop out, true, but you're drawing an incorrect comparison. The right comparison would be in terms of an inequality to publish their messages.
    This has been addressed - The goverment is there to protect your right to free speech, not make sure that everyone has the same access to political advertising.

  5. #115
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    None of this changes what I said - and, in fact, it worsens your position as you arent looking to level the plaing fields in terms of campaingin power, you're looking to level it in terms of election results.
    That should be clearly and utterly unacceptabe to anyone; why it isnt to you baffles me.
    No, you missed the point I'm trying to make again. I'm trying to allow all politicians in any one race to have an equal oppurtunity to spread their message. Since money is a highly flexible in its uses, I decided to target the amount of money each candidate recieves as a way to balance how much an average person gets on any one message. Because money also seems to be the most inequal (and always the msot potentially inequal) part of a race, it is the best thing to balance. I couldn't care less what the message is, or who is trying to say what, but we just need to give everyone the same chance to talk to the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Its not for the government to restrict those with the message and the support drawn to said message so that they cannot 'overwhelm' those with a weaker message and less support.
    You're saying you are perfectly okay with addressable imperfection in our political system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Noen of this changes anything I said. If that speech, expressed through some media other than money, were similarly restricted, all in the interest of making thngs 'fair', you and eveyone else that supports your position here would have a cow.
    It doesn't change anything because you aren't considering what I told you, even though you think you are. Limited liability is the key concept in this issue: it allows one incorporated group of people to have a larger amount of capital than a group of the same size that isn't incorporated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This has been addressed - The goverment is there to protect your right to free speech, not make sure that everyone has the same access to political advertising.
    And in doing so, the government essentially condones the continuance of complete inequality in our elections.

    I have a question for you: what is the rationale for not wanting to give every candidate in a race the same amount of opportunity to spread his/her message (regardless of what that message might be)?
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  6. #116
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    These people aren't perceiving anything. You're saying these campaign experts are common fools who go by their feelings. Not a chance.
    Since you obviously have deep expertise in this field, perhaps you can link me to a study that demonstrates that there is a causal relationship between the amount of money a candidate has, and his electoral results. I have never seen any such evidence.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #117
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    No, you missed the point I'm trying to make again. I'm trying to allow all politicians in any one race to have an equal oppurtunity to spread their message.
    Well, that's what I thought you said, and that's the point I oroginally addressed.
    Its not for the government to restrict those with the message and the support drawn to said message so that they cannot 'overwhelm' those with a weaker message and less support.

    You're saying you are perfectly okay with addressable imperfection in our political system?
    No, I'm saying that, given that campaign donations are a form of free speech, there's no imperfection to begin with.

    It doesn't change anything because you aren't considering what I told you, even though you think you are. Limited liability is the key concept in this issue: it allows one incorporated group of people to have a larger amount of capital than a group of the same size that isn't incorporated.
    Again: So what? All this really means is that the supprters of side A are better organized than the supporters of side B. This isn't an issue that the federal government needs to address.

    Restricting free speech is restricting free speech, regardless of the medum used to convey the message. Restricting donations with the expressed intent to 'level the playing field' is no different than similarly restricting blogs, opinon columns, letters to the editors, pamplheteering or any other more traditional means of supporting a political point - you certainly object to the idea of all the latter, and thus you -should- object to the idea of the former.

    And in doing so, the government essentially condones the continuance of complete inequality in our elections.
    teh 'inequality' of some candidtates havng more support than others?
    Thats how the system is -supposed- to work - there's noting to fix.

    I have a question for you: what is the rationale for not wanting to give every candidate in a race the same amount of opportunity to spread his/her message (regardless of what that message might be)?
    This should be obvious, and is addressed above.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 10-08-10 at 04:07 PM.

  8. #118
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Restricting free speech is restricting free speech, regardless of the medum used to convey the message. Restricting donations with the expressed intent to 'level the playing field' is no different than similarly restricting blogs, opinon columns, letters to the editors, pamplheteering or any other more traditional means of supporting a political point - you certainly object to the idea of all the latter, and thus you -should- object to the idea of the former.
    You're comparing apples to oranges. There is no baseline equality in the issue we are discussing, whereas there is equality in your examples. If there wasn't equality in those, I would also object to those as well.

    At this point, I think we've both made our arguments known. I still disagree with you, and I'm sure you feel the same, so agree to disagree?
    Last edited by repeter; 10-08-10 at 04:14 PM.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  9. #119
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I don't know about federally financed, I'd like to see people stop being able to buy elections. First, make it illegal to donate directly to any specific political campaign. If you want to donate, you donate to a general fund which gets dispensed equally to all people running in a particular election. Individual politicians cannot put a penny of their own money into their campaign. That puts everyone on an even playing field. Second, assign federal financial overseers to each campaign who keep track of every penny spent. Anyone who plays hanky panky earns a quick trip to jail for financial misconduct. Third, I'd like to see a limit on how much advertising and especially how much negative campaigning can be done. Require TV and radio stations, as a consequence of their FCC licenses, to air a certain number of 30-second political ads per day (probably under 5 ads), spread out amongst all candidates. These are done in such a way that there is equal coverage among the candidates in various times of the day.

    We need to get the elections to be about issues, not money.
    I couldn't agree more. You've covered every part of the process in more detail than I could ever imagine, proving you're not only a good organizer, you also understand logistics.

    Knowing that big business runs the Republican party, those who disagree are rich Republicans, hate Obama, being recalcitrant children, or are rich Republican wannabes.

    ricksfolly

  10. #120
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    You're comparing apples to oranges
    No, I'm not. In fact, my very first line - restricting free speech is restricting free speech, regardless of the medum used to convey the message - negates any such argument. Free speech is free speech, regardless of the medium, and so restricting it in any one medium is no different that restricting it in any other.

    There is no baseline equality in the issue we are discussing, whereas there is equality in your examples. If there wasn't equality in those, I would also object to those as well.
    Your failure here is your standard - "baseline equality" is a meaningless standrd, no mater how you define it. Its not the governent jo to make sure all sides of a political contest have equal maeans to access to access the vehicles they choose to use to disseminate their message.

    At this point, I think we've both made our arguments known. I still disagree with you, and I'm sure you feel the same, so agree to disagree?
    That's fine. Thanks!

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •