• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

Should America move to federally financed political campaigns?

  • yes

    Votes: 11 47.8%

  • No

    Votes: 12 52.2%
  • Total voters
    23
megaprogman said:
The difference is that money makes some more equal than others. I am all for the inequality that money brings, but not for a critical matter, such as this.
Click to expand...

Ok so what happens when the entrenched (politicians) groups just vote themselves more than enough money to continue their negative/harmful campaigning.

There is no real benefit to this, you're taking money that is privately given and forcing the taxpayer to subsidize the same thing.

And then with the private debate, they could again have the whole thing scripted and even if it wasn't, people debating over hard policy isn't going to interest the electorate at all.
The best appeals to emotion and the best looking politicians will win, still.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Independent groups are the voice of people.
These groups aren't run and funded by giraffes.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, they are funded by special interests with agendas. No one should be allowed to buy an office with bribes...I mean "campaign donations." That's one big problem with American politics. Politicians become log-rollers for people with money.
 
megaprogman said:
I see less of a problem with private citizens contributing as long as its their money and not the corp's.
Click to expand...

This ^^ but I would cap what an individual can contribute.
 
Technocratic said:
Unfortunately, they are funded by special interests with agendas. No one should be allowed to buy an office with bribes...I mean "campaign donations." That's one big problem with American politics. Politicians become log-rollers for people with money.
Click to expand...

I agree but I don't see any benefit from federally funded elections, the politicians will still listen to "special interests" for future promises of cushy jobs after retirement.

Don't forget either, that all voters have agendas and special interests, even if they are undeveloped and sophomoric they still exist.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I agree but I don't see any benefit from federally funded elections, the politicians will still listen to "special interests" for future promises of cushy jobs after retirement.

Don't forget either, that all voters have agendas and special interests, even if they are undeveloped and sophomoric they still exist.
Click to expand...

At least they are special interest that are actual constituents. Corporations profit agenda should not be able to hold your elected representatives subject to their agenda.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I agree but I don't see any benefit from federally funded elections, the politicians will still listen to "special interests" for future promises of cushy jobs after retirement.

Don't forget either, that all voters have agendas and special interests, even if they are undeveloped and sophomoric they still exist.
Click to expand...

That could be the case, but it does eliminate one avenue of influence. That you cannot get them all, doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder. Public funding prevents funding targeted specifically to one candidate as a bribe. It also balances out economic foundations for all candidates, so one doesn't have a huge warchest advantage because a corporation likes him.
 
Gabriel said:
At least they are special interest that are actual constituents. Corporations profit agenda should not be able to hold your elected representatives subject to their agenda.
Click to expand...

The people who are members of the corporations are still constituents.
Who's to say what they want is always wrong?
 
Technocratic said:
That could be the case, but it does eliminate one avenue of influence. That you cannot get them all, doesn't mean you shouldn't make it harder. Public funding prevents funding targeted specifically to one candidate as a bribe. It also balances out economic foundations for all candidates, so one doesn't have a huge warchest advantage because a corporation likes him.
Click to expand...

I see this as a way to increase incumbency and 2 party control.
There are unintended consequences from things like this.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The people who are members of the corporations are still constituents.
Who's to say what they want is always wrong?
Click to expand...

No.. these corporations are not in any way representative of their employees necessarily in any way. Corporations are not individuals.. Hard to believe I am fighting with a libertarian about what an individual is.
 
Will every election be federally funded? Governors, state legislatures, mayors, etc?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I see this as a way to increase incumbency and 2 party control.
There are unintended consequences from things like this.
Click to expand...

How exactly would equalizing funds and mandating formal debate for everyone encourage incumbency? We already have high incumbency anyway. I doubt it would be much different. Apathy helps keep people in office.
 
Helvidius said:
Will every election be federally funded? Governors, state legislatures, mayors, etc?
Click to expand...

Why not with smaller budgets? Considering how much all this corporate interference in government has costs the public the expenditure would look small by comparison.
 
Gabriel said:
No.. these corporations are not in any way representative of their employees necessarily in any way. Corporations are not individuals.. Hard to believe I am fighting with a libertarian about what an individual is.
Click to expand...

Individuals make up a corporation, some of them agree with the way the corporation is lobbying.
Why should they be represented less?

It's some kind of ax you have to grind with libertarians, sounds like a personal problem to me. :boohoo:
 
Technocratic said:
How exactly would equalizing funds and mandating formal debate for everyone encourage incumbency? We already have high incumbency anyway. I doubt it would be much different. Apathy helps keep people in office.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the debate will be anything but the superficial, softball fest we've had now.
Funding would flow to whomever Congress wanted to, basically all the incumbent parties and individuals.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Individuals make up a corporation, some of them agree with the way the corporation is lobbying.
Why should they be represented less?

It's some kind of ax you have to grind with libertarians, sounds like a personal problem to me. :boohoo:
Click to expand...

Only that libertarians are becoming corporate apologists in all this. You make excuses for government to be corrupted by big business instead of government being focused on policy and it comes off as terribly hypocritical. If you are a libertarian that supports the tea party you have been completely scammed. Libertarianism is not about government being controlled and manipulated by corporate interest.. or is that some new thing?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't believe the debate will be anything but the superficial, softball fest we've had now.
Funding would flow to whomever Congress wanted to, basically all the incumbent parties and individuals.
Click to expand...

Well, there are a number of ways and formats to go about it. I don't think the current format of debate would work, no. I would propose an alternate debate format. The debate structure could be similiar to the TEC debate structure. And you could also mandate that all public funding is equally distributed so as to prevent funneling, no?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Ok so what happens when the entrenched (politicians) groups just vote themselves more than enough money to continue their negative/harmful campaigning.

There is no real benefit to this, you're taking money that is privately given and forcing the taxpayer to subsidize the same thing.
Click to expand...

There would be no advantage in it as their opponent would automatically get the same benefit.

Harry Guerrilla said:
And then with the private debate, they could again have the whole thing scripted and even if it wasn't, people debating over hard policy isn't going to interest the electorate at all.
The best appeals to emotion and the best looking politicians will win, still.
Click to expand...

If politicians were actually accountable to the people, than they would have more motivation to do their jobs for the benefit of (all) people instead of a few advantaged groups.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The people who are members of the corporations are still constituents.
Who's to say what they want is always wrong?
Click to expand...

Those people would still be able to contribute to the election process, but with an influence that actually represents their numbers.
 
megaprogman said:
I see less of a problem with private citizens contributing as long as its their money and not the corp's.
Click to expand...

When it comes to high level executives and the corporation they work for, there is quite little difference between money from one and money from the other.
 
Gabriel said:
Only that libertarians are becoming corporate apologists in all this. You make excuses for government to be corrupted by big business instead of government being focused on policy and it comes off as terribly hypocritical. If you are a libertarian that supports the tea party you have been completely scammed. Libertarianism is not about government being controlled and manipulated by corporate interest.. or is that some new thing?
Click to expand...

I don't believe in corporate person hood but typically people who argue against corporate special interests are only talking about one kind of corporation, businesses.
It's often a veiled form of class warfare.

Not often do we talk about banning charities, unions and the like from the category of special interests.
So that and another indulgent reason, is why I'm supporting it in this debate.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't believe in corporate person hood but typically people who argue against corporate special interests are only talking about one kind of corporation, businesses.
It's often a veiled form of class warfare.
Click to expand...

Class warfare will never go away until money and the darker parts of human nature does (which will probably never happen) (nothing wrong with a rich person if they are also a good person)

Harry Guerrilla said:
Not often do we talk about banning charities, unions and the like from the category of special interests.
So that and another indulgent reason, is why I'm supporting it in this debate.
Click to expand...

Those organizations are made up of people and those people can still participate by voting. This makes it impossible for people to lose their influence. They just don't get multiple influence (themselves, plus their groups)
 
Technocratic said:
There is a way to fix the problem of independent groups putting out junk political ads: ban all political ads. Institute mandatory formal debate in writing/television in its place for all candidates. All funding should be public, based on tax dollars. There should be no independent funding allowed, from corporations or citizens.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that in America we allow websites that show off tits with such little protections that 12-year-olds can look it up at any time but using television and radio as a medium for the announcement of political awareness for the electorate should be banned? That's not how free speech works.
 
Technocratic said:
Well, there are a number of ways and formats to go about it. I don't think the current format of debate would work, no. I would propose an alternate debate format. The debate structure could be similiar to the TEC debate structure. And you could also mandate that all public funding is equally distributed so as to prevent funneling, no?
Click to expand...

The reason I get suspicious over these things is because of Congressional shenanigans like gerrymandering and party "moat digging."
Where they do stuff to protect their shared power.

I've come up with an alternative to the House of Representatives that I think is more equal but it mimics the senate in some regards.

I'd like the debates to be held by the league of women voters, like it was before.
They seemed to have done a good job.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'd like the debates to be held by the league of women voters, like it was before.
They seemed to have done a good job.
Click to expand...

I think we should enact Trial by Combat in which we put the two candidates in a kiddie pool of KY and a single pool cue as the weapon and whoever gets out alive wins the election. It's the way God wants it to be. It's in the Bible. Somewhere.
 
samsmart said:
When it comes to high level executives and the corporation they work for, there is quite little difference between money from one and money from the other.
Click to expand...

People can often carry a much different political agenda then their employers, it most certainly be regarded in that manner. Corporations are like mini collectives and in no way should libertarians be supportive of these groups that are supposed to be subject to the market. The donations should be capped so I agree with your statement. A small number of individuals should not have more influence on collectively elected representatives to the extent they are. The difference is how much can be contributed. I don't see anything wrong with making a 3k contribution from individuals the cap and allocating a limited amount from the public purse for advertising to ballot representatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom