Where Should Politician Funding Come From?

[AntiParty]

Where Should Politician Funding Come From?

Generally new and inspiring events make the news. That is what news is.

Yet Corporate ABC, CBS, and, NBC were 3 of Obama's top ten donors.

Why are Top Media Corporations donating to people who need donations for air time to make them a viable candidate?

I know the small brains think politicians are controlling the media....How pathetic is that.
Corporate Media controls politicians. Follow the money.

 

[AntiParty]

If I remember correctly, 95% of the time the person with the most Corporate funding wins elections.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The individual should fund the politician.

 

[AntiParty]

The individual should fund the politician.

Why not just vote for them?

If the politician is smart and correct, there is no need for funding correct ?

 

[AntiParty]

Watching superficial America say, "That's just how it is!"

 

[FA_Q2]

I have seen some compelling evidence that publically funded elections work quite well. It is an idea worth floating.
The problem I have is that publically purchasing congress is not going to go away no matter where the funding comes from as long as congress can grant special favors and tax rights to individual interests.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

American politics is for sale, and you are the low bidder. Until you change that, this is what you get.

 

[Mac1958]

With the massive reach of media and the internet now, there is no reason why campaigns cannot be waged without the distortion of private money.

Our "leaders" are bought and paid for, and we all know it.

.

 

[AntiParty]

I have seen some compelling evidence that publically funded elections work quite well. It is an idea worth floating.
The problem I have is that publically purchasing congress is not going to go away no matter where the funding comes from as long as congress can grant special favors and tax rights to individual interests.

Corporation A spends millions on a politician. Sometimes in hope that politician will make some new law that will slow down the Competition. We have all seen big regulation on certain and specific Corporations while others get away with murder. "Too Big To Jail" is a phrase for a reason.

 

[AntiParty]

With the massive reach of media and the internet now, there is no reason why campaigns cannot be waged without the distortion of private money.

Our "leaders" are bought and paid for, and we all know it.

.

^Great post.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The massive reach of the Internet and media is not free.

I have no problem with private donations, I just
T
hint we should set a relatively low cap on what can be raisEd and spent in a single cycle.

 

[AntiParty]

The massive reach of the Internet and media is not free.

I have no problem with private donations, I just
T
hint we should set a relatively low cap on what can be raisEd and spent in a single cycle.

?

Me buying the internet has nothing to do with the amount of money my internet Corporation pays a politician.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have seen some compelling evidence that publically funded elections work quite well. It is an idea worth floating.
The problem I have is that publically purchasing congress is not going to go away no matter where the funding comes from as long as congress can grant special favors and tax rights to individual interests.

Corporation A spends millions on a politician. Sometimes in hope that politician will make some new law that will slow down the Competition. We have all seen big regulation on certain and specific Corporations while others get away with murder. "Too Big To Jail" is a phrase for a reason.

They don't hope - they ensure.

The really telling fact is that most of the time the major players donate to BOTH parties. That should tell us all we need to know. IF they were really using the donation to push the ';better' candidate they would not be donating to both sides. The fact that they do tells us that they are interested in buying favor more than promoting the best candidate.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Corporations" aren't allowed to donate money to candidates.

PACs and individuals are.

 

[oldernwiser]

It's not just donations these days. I have no problem with a candidate buying his own air time to tell voters what he stands for and what he wants to do - we get to listen, we all get to hold him accountable for what he says long after the race is done. Where, I think, we run into problems is when outside groups working in conjunction with a campaign (it's not legal to do it, but we can probably assume there is more than a little collusion) can outspend a candidate's own war chest to represent any view they care to - without regard to fact, and without directly blowing back to the candidate himself. At this point, it would make very little difference if campaign contributions were trimmed to nothing. Media would still cover the sound bites, candidates would still visit their constituencies, and we'd still get all kinds of misinformation from outside interests.

And can it be stopped? I certainly have the right to tell anyone who I'm voting for and why. Unions do it every cycle (part of the reason that other groups want to destroy unions?). How do you stop the freedom of speech? There's only one way to make sure that outside groups stop the practice and that's to constantly cost them real money. The only way I can think to do that is for the electorate to do their own research and tune out all else but what each candidate actually says, does, or has done in the past. If the advertising has no significant impact on an election, the donations supporting that advertising will dry up. And maybe then, candidates will have to re-develop the balls to stand in front of us and talk to us themselves like they did not too long ago.

 

[The Rabbi]

Looks like someone will have to stand up for the Constitution.
There should be no limits, zero, on campaign funding. The only caveat is that is that a candidates' donors must be listed.
Reagan's entire first campaign was funded by about 8 people. Having wealthy donors relieves candidates of the tedium of making appeals to thousands of people. It also removes the fiction of "bundlers". It is the most open and honest way of conducting campaigns.
Incumbents have natural advantages and a challenger must overcome them to win. It is no coincidence that the increased retention of incumbents has come with increasing finance restrictions. Anyone wanting to restrict private money also must want to see incumbents spend careers in Congress and other offices.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Imho: The way to limit the influence of money, is to cap campaign spending.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There really isn't an easy answer to this.

 

[The Rabbi]

There really isn't an easy answer to this.

No, there is. It is what I outlined, which is what the Constitution prescribes.
It is not axiomatic that the one who spends the most gets elected. Just ask Kay Hagan.

 

[timslash]

I think funding should come only from their pockets.
We should elect person who built his own business without help, strong and powerful, or average man without lots of money, but with common sense and experience, not another corporations puppet!