I’m backing up to the basics again. For example, why couldn’t the government require each hopeful to simply publish a manifesto and allow Q&A rather than ask for gobs of money to travel and advertise, etc.? We could have a central place to go look at this manifesto and take it from there.
And who would pay for that?
They don’t need money to campaign. Public funding is available to do exactly what you propose. However, politicians have discovered that campaigns and TV ads are much better at getting elected. And the First Amendment guarantees their ability to raise money and put out ads.
Pay for what?
How is public funding not money? Money is implied in the “funding” part of the phrase, isn’t it?
I understand that. But if they all publish a manifesto and aren’t allowed to ‘hollywood’, wouldn’t that save taxpayers (and lobbyists) a whooole lot of money?
Who would pay for the cost of publishing their manifesto, and setting up some way that people can ask questions and they can answer them, he means.
I’m brainstorming here… each gets a page on the federal gov’t website along with a discussion board.
This idea sounds an awful lot like an unconstitutional restriction on political speech, and I don’t think a single pamphlet and a discussion board would give the public enough information about its candidates.
The “not allowed to ‘hollywood’” part is what is unconstitutional. Or are you proposing to change that?
True. Poor reading comprehension on my part. Obviously some amount of money is required to get a political message out regardless of who pays for it. I inferred that the OP was attacking the huge sums of money used in political campaigns, to which my answer is “they raise and spend it because it gets them elected”.
I think trying to outlaw campaigning is going to run into First Amendment issues PDQ.
I want to run for governor, and I have a bunch of friends who want me to win. Each kicks in $100 to buy a TV commercial. How are you going to stop me from buying the air time?
Regards,
Shodan
I say we kill them. Or, theoretically, if you really wanted to go down that road and don’t care about Constitutional or civil rights issues, you just forbid broadcasters from running political ads.
There will be plenty of time for that after the election.
We are going to need a bigger police force - stopping broadcasters from running ads, preventing printers from printing leaflets, scouring the Internet for unauthorized web sites, chaining candidates to the bedstead to be sure they don’t fly around the country giving speeches.
One wonders what to do about candidates running for re-election. Can we prevent them from speechifying? Do we need to pre-censor the State of the Union address to be sure Obama doesn’t say anything that sounds like he wants another four years? What about candidates who haven’t declared - can they be prevented from writing books about what they would do?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t understand what you’re talking about in terms of “saving the taxpayers money.” Taxpayers don’t pay campaign costs, except if a presidential candidate accepts public financing which is based on voluntary contributions from taxpayers.
The major costs of campaign involve office space, travel, advertising, swag like t-shirts and yard signs, maybe some money for polls depending on the office being sought, fundraising (takes money to make money), and some staff to do things like schedule appearances, organize volunteers, and answer questions from the press.
Do you really want a political system where you are expected to vote for someone having never heard them give a speech on their positions or meet with anyone to hear their concerns?
While I agree with your first point, I can’t decide whether you’re joking with your second, given the amount of information the average voter boldly goes forth to the booth with.
So those of us who care what a candidate stands for should be limited to the barest amount of information that idiots may use to guide their vote?
I’m not joking. And if the average voter is poorly informed, how are things improved if the voter gets much less information?
Think of the hit to the economy. Doesn’t campaigning account for about 25% of GDP in the US? 
But yeah, there is the minor problem of the First Amendment, which is nigh on absolute when it comes to political speech.
They have to purchase Tv and radio time to present their positions to the public. That is very expensive. But since it brings billions into the TV and radio networks, it will not end.
You have to set up organizations . it includes paid managers, and several offices. You need to rent office space and buy office equipment. If it is a national campaign, it requires an interlocking organization with many paid managers and spokesmen.
You have to have fund raisers. that requires more organization . You need to purchase literature and yard signs.
There are lots of expenses involved in a political campaign.
Not less information, just less air time. The problem is that most people make up their minds based on 30 second commercials that offer very little information indeed. If those commercials ceased to exist, people might seek out better information.
Or not, because most people are lazy and stupid. But one can hope.