• 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
American said:
If that were true, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
How could ANYone vote "No"????? :wassat1:

Money in campaigns is the largest problem OF the election! It breeds corruption! Anyone with a understanding of the System MUST vote YES!
Click to expand...

1. How does it breed corruption?
2. How would federally funded campaigns solve this problem?
3. Even if they did solve this problem, how would you deal with the other problems they would create?
4. What kind of political speech would you ban individuals or groups from making, without the government's blessing?
5. Who qualifies for federal funds and how is this determined?
 
Last edited:
mikhail said:
Term limits would have more of a desired effect i think.
Click to expand...

While term limits would be a blessing for our government, and "politics as usual" it doesn't address the problem of equality in election season.
 
repeter said:
While term limits would be a blessing for our government, and "politics as usual" it doesn't address the problem of equality in election season.
Click to expand...
You need to show that this sort of "equality" is necessary, so much so that it requires restricitng the rights of the American people.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not in today's political field. Now adays it is all about drowning out the competition.
Click to expand...
That's just a function of money, which is a function of having a message that attracts supporters.

Its not for the government to restrict those with the message the support drawn to said message so that they cannot 'drown out' those with a weaker message and less support.
 
repeter said:
While term limits would be a blessing for our government, and "politics as usual" it doesn't address the problem of equality in election season.
Click to expand...

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.
 
repeter said:
If we want to preserve some semblance of balanced, free speech in our elections, then yes, we should level the playing field.
Click to expand...
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.

When you have single groups, single people who can hand out millions of dollars to a political party, that isn't the support of the people, its the support of a person, and more often some special interest groups, through lobbyists and what not.
Click to expand...
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.

Your perspective would be completely valid if there were absolute limits that any one group could give to any one candidate, and even then, there would be loopholes for those groups to give more, or make it seem like more people gave to one candidate.
Click to expand...
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.

Again, we have single people spending huge amounts of funds to overwhelm the average person.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
Money and politics have come far too closely related for our government to work efficiently. You should not be able to buy your way into any office without the proper credentials. It seems we have massed a large number of politicians incredibly unfit for their career, who can pay for ads and campaigning with ease due to their high placed connections.

Having large amounts of money involved in politics is dangerous in the way that it is so prone to cause corruption, and rather than have goodhearted politicians working for the good of the country, we have selfish men working hand in hand with billion dollar corporations. However spending federal funds on these same kinds of people would be tragic indeed.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

These people aren't perceiving anything. You're saying these campaign experts are common fools who go by their feelings. Not a chance.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Goobieman said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
repeter said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're saying you are perfectly okay with addressable imperfection in our political system?

Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)?
 
American said:
These people aren't perceiving anything. You're saying these campaign experts are common fools who go by their feelings. Not a chance.
Click to expand...

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.
 
repeter said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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)?
Click to expand...
This should be obvious, and is addressed above.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
repeter said:
You're comparing apples to oranges
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
That's fine. Thanks!
 
It would appear that the majority of companies funding campaigns, are only companies who will see benefits once their candidate attains office. Thus we have been pulled into a cycle of rich businesses and rich politicians, simply working to make one an other more money. Which also means that the only people who run for this office, are more concerned with making large sums of money than the well being of our country.

Funds should be given on the basis of positive, productive, and working ideas for addressing our countries REAL issues.
Money should not be handed out to be spent on television ads merely slandering their opponents.

The lack of suitable candidates stems from a problem rooted deep in our society. If we hope to find out who, out of our nation, are the best fit for these jobs, positive action needs to be taken on a smaller scale, we can no longer consistently rely on the respective parties to present us with viable options. It pains me to think that out of the 300 Million people in this country, we can't find/(decide on) anyone who is fit enough to clean up this mess. Perhaps the age of which you can attain presidency should be altered in order to utilize the up and coming minds of the future.

Perhaps Federal funding could be used to pay a politician a small livable salary, and perhaps provide them with comfortable housing, in order to prove their motives for running for office.
Perhaps this will clean out our cabinets and senate seats for the people undoubtedly trying to do the country good.
Perhaps instead of liars and fools, we can allow intelligence, wisdom, and truth run our country once again.

Perhaps some of this government spending and political campaign money should be cut, and maybe then we could pay productive school teachers what they should deserve.
 
Last edited:
Peter Valentine said:
It would appear that the majority of companies funding campaigns, are only companies who will see benefits once their candidate attains office.
Click to expand...
The same goes for individuals that fund campaigns. Everyone acts in their own self-interest.

Funds should be given on the basis of positive, productive, and working ideas for addressing our countries REAL issues.
Click to expand...
I'll agree to this idea so long as -I- get to make those decisions. Cool by you?
 
This is where the problem lies, we should not even consider affiliating our country with "self-interest" but rather the interest of our country, or better yet the earth as a whole.

As for deciding what ideas are productive, and what issues are important, perhaps -YOU- are fit to make these decisions.

But my opinion is that these decisions should be made by a designated board in which the members are designed to fully understand what actually needs to be done in order for our country to prosper at 100%.
 
Peter Valentine said:
This is where the problem lies, we should not even consider affiliating our country with "self-interest" but rather the interest of our country, or better yet the earth as a whole.

As for deciding what ideas are productive, and what issues are important, perhaps -YOU- are fit to make these decisions.

But my opinion is that these decisions should be made by a designated board in which the members are designed to fully understand what actually needs to be done in order for our country to prosper at 100%.
Click to expand...

I prefer a system in which every faction's self-interest is taken into account.
 
Peter Valentine said:
This is where the problem lies, we should not even consider affiliating our country with "self-interest" but rather the interest of our country, or better yet the earth as a whole.
Click to expand...
Good luck in changing human nature.

As for deciding what ideas are productive, and what issues are important, perhaps -YOU- are fit to make these decisions.
Click to expand...
Then get the system set up and hand me the power.

But my opinion is that these decisions should be made by a designated board in which the members are designed to fully understand what actually needs to be done in order for our country to prosper at 100%
Click to expand...
Ok then -- I get to designate the members of the board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom