In Canada the political parties get a small amount of federal funds based on the number of votes they got in the last election.
“If a party has received more than 2% of the national vote or 5% in the ridings it contested, then it may qualify for a payment equal to 60% of its election expenses.”
I’m not convinced that any of the restrictions on political speech are worth giving up in this case. I know that it’s quite popular to deride monetary donations as not worthy of this sort of protection, but I don’t understand where the disconnect is.
If I can make a sign and stick it in my yard advocating a candidate, why can’t I pool my money with a bunch of like-minded people to make a bunch of signs and distribute them?
If I were rich enough and could buy my own cable network to advocate a political opinion, why should I be prohibited from pooling my money with some other people who also don’t own a cable network to buy some time on someone else’s cable network?
I think that protecting the principle of unfettered political speech is far more important than this particular standard of fairness.
I can tell you three people who’ll LOVE this idea: Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Your plan rewards people who are ALREADY extremely famous, and punishes people who NEED to spend a lot of money just to achieve the name recognition Jeb Bush, HillaryClinton and Donald Trump already enjoy.
No, it’s a bug alrighty. Because the candidate who will get the most money will be the one who appeals to the people who have the most money. The wealthy, in short. With less than 5 percent of Americans controlling more than 40 percent of the wealth in the U.S. it’s an invitation to oligarchy. Which is what we are getting under Citizens United. Notice that neither Bush nor Obama could find a single banker to jail despite all the fraud that led to the Great Recession. Both parties are owned by the bankers. The point of this thread is to fix this problem.
Cite?
Please show an example of such unfairness. i have never seen an election with 50 candidates. And then the ignorance of saying the first one has a good idea is just as ridiculous.
The first guy with a dumb idea sets the agenda and his ideas get more attention than they merit.
I don’t think it’s true that whoever has the most money wins. I think the reality is that a candidate has to get above a certain financial threshold in order to have a serious campaign. A candidate who can only raise ten million dollars isn’t going to get his message out and be seen as a serious contender. But above a certain level, visibility reaches a plateau - a candidate with a hundred million can beat a candidate with two hundred million.
How’s abouta ballot with 135 candidates?
Sure only four candidates got more than 1% of the vote. That doesn’t change that on the day of the election there were 135 candidates on the ballot.
Since you favor overturning the Citizens United decision presumably that means you do think that means the government has the right to ban movies and books that criticize political candidates.
I disagree and think this would be a gross violation of the First Amendment.
Please explain why I’m wrong.
Also, do you agree that if the Sierra Club can and should be prosecuted for passing out leaflets criticizing political candidates that you also believe that the government can forbid the KKK and the American Nazi Party from marching through Jewish neighborhoods.
If you don’t please explain your reasoning.
That was an insane ridiculous election following a recall on the Gov. That had everybody and his mother getting on TV. It gave us Arnold. is that a “good idea”?
I thought it would be obvious I was offering, not an example of a good idea, but a counter to your blithe claim that you’d never seen a campaign with fifty candidates. That was why I quoted only that portion of your post, after all.
I’m not restricting speech, just how it’s funded in political campaigns. Do you not get the point? I think you are being obtuse.
Ok, so then you’re saying you do think the government should have the right to ban books and movies that criticize political candidates?
And no, I’m not being “obtuse”.
Citizens United was over the question of whether or not the government had the right to ban a film.
So, do you favor the government being able to ban films and movies that criticize political candidates?
No. Both parties are bitches of the electorate.
I had no idea we were in a Great Recession…as opposed to earlier ones. But anyway. Government & banks have had a relationship for decades. That has nothing to do with party politics or elections. That has to do with economics theory and government.
Since when has fascism become popular?
A better system would be a voucher system with campaign contribution limits.
There are about 200 million eleigible voters in the USA (citizens over the age of 18 who are not disqualified from voting due to their status as felons, etc).
Any time the voter can vote for a congressman, the voter gets $10 (pick whatever amount you feel comfortable with) that they can contribute to any congressional candidate. $2 Billion every other year (assuming everyone goes to the trouble of donating their voucher to a candidate and ignoring special elections) or $12 Billion every 12 years.
If there is a senate race in your state, you get an additional $10 to contribute to a senatorial candidate. $4 Billion every 6 years or $8 Billion every 12 years.
If it is a presidential election year you get an additional $10 to contribute to a presidential candidate. $2 Billion every 4 years for a total of or 6 Billion dollars every 12 years for a total of 26 Billion dollars every 12 years or about 2.3 billion dollars every year (less than what we pay on interest on the national debt in two days).
Make these donations non-public so you don’t know who your neighbor contributed to. Make all other donations public and limit donations to $1000 (or pick some number).
Make sure that the total spent by these vouchers dwarfs private spending and over time private spending will shrivel (this may require $25 vouchers or even $100 vouchers). In the face of this sort of citizen empowerment Soros and the Koch brothers become much less important.
Or the ballot in Detroit when there were over 100 people running for the city council just a couple years ago.
For 8 spots. that works out to 12 per seat.
Well an awful lot of people voted for Bush in 2004 knowing he had led them into an illegal and totally unnecessary war in Iraq. So I’d call that the starting date!
Whatever the pretext of Citizens United was, the EFFECT it had was to allow unlimited floods of dollars into political campaigns, giving the wealthy a huge advantage in political campaigning, and given that the top 4 percent of Americans controls 40-50% of the wealth in this country, we are talking Oligarchyland Real Soon Now. I don’t care about the damn movie, in fact, I hope it gets picked up by Cinemax and shown on cable nationwide. It’s the money that matters.
No. You do not get to frame this as a censorship issue. It’s not. It’s a matter of preserving democracy, an issue you clearly do not care the least about.
