But none of the other candidates agree this election.


Or the next, the one after that.....

would be a good start.

Bernie has called for us to speak up and pressure congress.

Then, after cutting the amount spent by ninety percent,
how about restricting the length of campaigning to
thirty days? That should be long enough to get the
job done and short enough to keep the electorate
from getting sick of politics.

liars.

... is that people get sick of the campaigning long before election time.

eom

The former just needs psssed into law while the latter would require a constitutional amendment.

Will be intersting to see how it proposes to keep public funding up with private funding. The devil is always in the details.

They are telling us loud and clear that they just don't get it.

Otherwise most candidates will just choose private funds and claim it's the only way they can compete. There would have to be some mechanism in the bill to keep the public funding competitive. I think setting an automatic floor for total funds available to the total private money raised (candidates, pacs, superpacs) in the previous comparable election cycle, with the ability for congress to raise it higher would be a fair starting point.

The other question I have on the bill is the method of distributing the funds. There are many ways it could be done, some more equitable than others.





Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for this. I think we desperately need public funding (I'd prefer we went to only public funding, even though I recognize that's probably not possible in today's political climate). I only point these things out because I'm very interested in how it would be accomplished.

Maybe that will change your mind.

Second of all, a single case does not make a trend. Just because one candidate is able to compete against the odds does not mean that all candidates could, especially in lower positions that don't draw the same amount of attention. Bernie is doing so well in spite of the spending because he brings such a populous message that is very different from the crowd. Another candidate who might otherwise be capable of winning, but without the populous message, would be drowned out by superior spending.

yes his money is private but it's not a lot of money, showing that it may not take a lot to win. To your second point, yes his message is populist, and that is why he may win with not much money, but that is also going to make a point to politicians that they need to listen to us, not just money.

And if he gets into office, with our help, he may just help us defeat the money in politics.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

You are right, until I hear further details, I can't say if I am in favor or not. I sure as hell don't want taxpayers funding every clown that decides to run.

I sure don't think we should be paying the bills for the likes of Jindahl, Walker, Cruz and every other fringe candidate, including such luminaries like the "Rent is too damn high" guy from several years ago, as they gallivant all over the country

And I'm quite certain their voters don't want their taxes funding campaigns by Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren.

to set a total funding pool for candidates running on public funds. All candidates have to declare if they're running on public or private donations up front. Candidates running on private donations are ineligible to receive public funds, and vice versa.

Now instead of giving the money directly to candidates, the money is instead broken up evenly to every registered voter in the country. If 3 billion dollars is set for the election cycle and there's 70 million registered voters then $42.85 is sent to each voter.

This would be sent to them in the form of a card similar to a credit or snap card. The card could only be used to make donations to any registered public campaigns in any amount from 1 cent to the total available on the card. The voters would never have access to the money, they could just use the card and it would draw out of a central fund by the registered candidates. Any money left on the card at the end of the election cycle goes back into the pot for the next election cycle.

This would put the choice of who gets the funding up to the voters. I could choose to give $30 to the presidential candidate of my choice, $10 to the senator of my choice, etc. Any candidate, including third party candidates could receive public funding simply by convincing voters to donate to them.

There would have to be privacy laws put in place to prevent business and other interests from pressuring workers to donate to candidates of their choice.

With no chance of passing?

line in Congress and he's using it well. Actual bills get discussed and voted on out of the political arena. He continues steadily garnering support and now a bit more exposure.

by that person has ever filed for bankruptcy. Can't trust them to manage the public's money.

Thanks to SCOTUS & Citizens United.

A good pubic financing bill would side-step CU and make
it irrelevant

Newspaper editorial boards and think tanks tend to be hysterical about it. I have never met an ordinary voter who prioritizes it.

In the end it is a sleeper of an issue because it is dense and wonky, and as soon as you pass a new law, loopholes emerge as soon as the ink is dry.

And public financing cannot stop private so-called independent expenditures. In fact, public financing
would embolden the SuperPAC's, by limiting the spending that comes from the actual candidates.

I'm so glad someone is finally talking about this!

In my world, public funding is funded via tax payer money, and private funding is individuals and companies.

Is there a definition somewhere that clears this up, because judging by the comments on this thread, ive seen a coupleof different interpretations.

Don't try. Don't make waves. Don't. Don't. Don't. It's impossible.

Do accept your servitude. Do accept the new CU reality. Do get back to work now, it's time for your second job.


Forgot the sarcasm disclaimer!

Also wanted to add this fun stat: 8 of our 12 cooks have 2 jobs.

If anyone could come in and get ranked votes without having big money buying them up, it would make it harder for big money to "buy the field" if voters see that every candidate that gets bought has the voter rank higher those that don't take money.