• 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
I think coverage of a candidate is more important than funding. Chris Christie was at a great disadvantage to Jon Corzine when he ran for governor. Corzine, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, had millions of his own money to spend. Christie got the coverage and had a message NJ liked and thus defeated Corzine. I wouldn't move to federally funded campaigns. Why should a party with the support of a hundred people earn the same as a party with the support of a million? Third parties are at a huge disadvantage, but to make it even would require repealing the laws that disadvantage them. They already have so many loopholes to jump through if they wish to be elected, it is no wonder Republicans and Democrats dominate politics in the U.S.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
There would be no advantage in it as their opponent would automatically get the same benefit.
Click to expand...

Which opponent?
I'm not so sure that I could believe that a Libertarian or Socialist party member would get the same level of funding.

megaprogman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.
A lot of things politicians have done wrong, is because they did what the people wanted.
We've held off on reforming Social Security and Medicare because a sect of "the people" get mad and will reliably vote out these politicians.
 
Helvidius said:
Third parties are at a huge disadvantage, but to make it even would require repealing the laws that disadvantage them. They already have so many loopholes to jump through if they wish to be elected it is no wonder Republicans and Democrats dominate politics in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Third parties aren't at a disadvantage because of campaign financing. Third parties are at a disadvantage because of our plurality voting system. This is called Duverger's Law.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Which opponent?
I'm not so sure that I could believe that a Libertarian or Socialist party member would get the same level of funding.
Click to expand...

Any other contending political party and I would prefer that they all get the same funding if they can meet some reasonable minimum requirements or are the top 10 (or some other number) most popular parties.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes and no.
A lot of things politicians have done wrong, is because they did what the people wanted.
Click to expand...

We get the country we deserve in many ways.

Harry Guerrilla said:
We've held off on reforming Social Security and Medicare because a sect of "the people" get mad and will reliably vote out these politicians.
Click to expand...

So you think some special interest will come along and fix this problem? Its going to happen anyway.
 
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.

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...

All special interest including Unions or what have you should be banned. The only thing that should be influencing the voter base is the policies. The rest of your argument regarding class warfare is nothing but an attempt to paint me in a corner. You could argue that libertarians are obsessed with destroying the middle class.. class warfear**.
 
megaprogman said:
Any other contending political party and I would prefer that they all get the same funding if they can meet some reasonable minimum requirements or are the top 10 (or some other number) most popular parties.
Click to expand...

That would be fair to me.


megaprogman said:
We get the country we deserve in many ways.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

megaprogman said:
So you think some special interest will come along and fix this problem? Its going to happen anyway.
Click to expand...

I feel kinda scorned and bitter, at times, about this.
I'd like to call it, "You reap what you sow."
(Not you specifically.)
 
samsmart said:
Third parties aren't at a disadvantage because of campaign financing. Third parties are at a disadvantage because of our plurality voting system. This is called Duverger's Law.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Yes, that is one problem. Other include requirements put on third parties just to be eligible to run. I think in Florida a party needs something like 200,000 signatures to be eligible in an election.
 
Gabriel said:
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.
Click to expand...

So corporations can pay other individuals +3K to give 3K to a certain candidate and keep the rest for their trouble?
 
Helvidius said:
Yes, that is one problem. Other include requirements put on third parties just to be eligible to run. I think in Florida a party needs something like 200,000 signatures to be eligible in an election.
Click to expand...

Plurality voting isn't "one problem" for third party candidates. It is the problem. Allow transferable voting for third party candidates and people will start voting for them. What's more, those third party votes will actually start to count.
 
samsmart said:
So corporations can pay other individuals +3K to give 3K to a certain candidate and keep the rest for their trouble?
Click to expand...

yeah that is what would happen but at least it would be much more difficult to manage and certainly they would have difficulty having thousands of people donate secretly without being discovered. But further it would clear up the completion of the lobby mess in Washington and force elected representatives to focus on policy for the people as opposed to corporate interest. As it is currently your government is for sale to corporate interest almost exclusively.
 
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. Tits aren't harming 12 year olds anyway, but most political ads harm public discourse. They promote, and exploit, a culture of corruption, short attention spans. They are unreliable and distracting, useless forms of political discussion.
 
Technocratic said:
I didn't say that. Tits aren't harming 12 year olds anyway, but most political ads harm public discourse. They promote, and exploit, a culture of corruption, short attention spans. They are unreliable and distracting, useless forms of political discussion.
Click to expand...
And being as they are political discussion, they are protected by the First Amendment, moreso even than tits.
 
Gabriel said:
yeah that is what would happen but at least it would be much more difficult to manage and certainly they would have difficulty having thousands of people donate secretly without being discovered. But further it would clear up the completion of the lobby mess in Washington and force elected representatives to focus on policy for the people as opposed to corporate interest. As it is currently your government is for sale to corporate interest almost exclusively.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. It would just be more regulation for corporations to either find loopholes or outright ignore until their lawyers can take it up to the Supreme Court and get it struck down.

Don't worry, though. In about 20 years the generation that relies solely on television, radio, and print media for their information will be dead, and those that remain will get their commercials via the internet, so most political ads will instead be heard on YouTube, Pandora, and the blogosphere. So it's all moot anyways.
 
samsmart said:
No it wouldn't. It would just be more regulation for corporations to either find loopholes or outright ignore until their lawyers can take it up to the Supreme Court and get it struck down.
Click to expand...

A simple no tolerance policy .. zero loopholes would end it. Your being overly pessimistic about failure to monitor campaign contributions without even giving it a chance or credence.
 
Coronado said:
And being as they are political discussion, they are protected by the First Amendment, moreso even than tits.
Click to expand...

A "libertarian" with his favorite corporate logo in his sig.. how pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel said:
A simple no tolerance policy .. zero loopholes would end it.
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't. Money will always find its way to power. Always.
Gabriel said:
Your being overly pessimistic about failure to monitor campaign contributions without even giving it a chance or credence.
Click to expand...
Campaign contributions are already being monitored: OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting

Adding more laws and penalties to the mix will simply push the contributions underground where they cannot be monitored.

You want politicians to no longer be bought off? Take away their power. Other than that, all the campaign finance laws in the world aren't worth a squirt of piss.
 
Gabriel said:
A "libertarian" with his favorite corporate logo in his sig.. how pathetic.
Click to expand...
An "educator" who can't ****ing read or recognize irony.. how pathetic.
 
Gabriel said:
A simple no tolerance policy .. zero loopholes would end it. Your being overly pessimistic about failure to monitor campaign contributions without even giving it a chance or credence.
Click to expand...

If you can find a way to write a bill with zero loopholes, and get a majority of the House of Representatives to vote for it, and get a majority of the Senate to vote for it after getting a 2/3 majority to vote to end a filibuster to bring it up to a vote, get a President to sign it into law then you, and make it able to withstand a decision from the Supreme Court to strike it down, then you, good sir, would be the greatest statesman of our age.
 
Coronado said:
No, it wouldn't. Money will always find its way to power. Always.Campaign contributions are already being monitored: OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting

Adding more laws and penalties to the mix will simply push the contributions underground where they cannot be monitored.

You want politicians to no longer be bought off? Take away their power. Other than that, all the campaign finance laws in the world aren't worth a squirt of piss.
Click to expand...

lmao. Never mind... you epitomize the libertarian corporate apologist. I have no interest in much anything you have to say about this subject, you don't even understand libertarianism.
 
Gabriel said:
lmao. Never mind... you epitomize the libertarian corporate apologist. I have no interest in much anything you have to say about this subject, you don't even understand libertarianism.
Click to expand...
I accept your surrender.
 
samsmart said:
If you can find a way to write a bill with zero loopholes, and get a majority of the House of Representatives to vote for it, and get a majority of the Senate to vote for it after getting a 2/3 majority to vote to end a filibuster to bring it up to a vote, get a President to sign it into law then you, and make it able to withstand a decision from the Supreme Court to strike it down, then you, good sir, would be the greatest statesman of our age.
Click to expand...

Well obviously it's going to fail because your politicians will be bought off. Fix it. There should be zero tolerance to corporate donations. If you can not fix it your "democracy"/ government is broken for good.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel said:
./bow.....
Click to expand...
It's more fun to spit out things you heard on the television than to answer the points I made to you, isn't it?

Maybe one of these days when you grow up we can have an actual debate. Maybe.
 
Coronado said:
It's more fun to spit out things you heard on the television than to answer the points I made to you, isn't it?

Maybe one of these days when you grow up we can have an actual debate. Maybe.
Click to expand...

./ignore the corporate appologist. Koch industries is the corporate interest behind the tea party. End of argument.

EDIT: As a libertarian you should be embarrassed to have that in your sig.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom