Ross Perot and campaign finance. Was he on to something?

The two other threads on Perot started me to thinking about someone I met when I lived in Texas, who claimed to have known him. Well, this fella was slightly out there, but somewhere along the line in a conversation with him in a group of people, someone brought up the fact that he thought Ross was an idiot for using his own money to campaign instead of soliciting donations like everyone else.

The Ross acquaintance said it didn't cost him anything because he only used the interest from his money to run. So maybe this is naive of me, but why can't all candidates do that? I mean what if we gave each candidate a certain amount of money to run, like has been mentioned before, from the interest from money invested for this purpose.

So campaign contributions could go into a campaign trust fund. (You'd have to bribe contributors with some kind of tax cut or perk of some sort, because they wouldn't be allowed to do it for a specific candidate.) Then the interest would be used to give to the candidates for the actual campaign. I would also go for the 1,000 signatures and a dollar or two contribution to qualify the candidates as has been done recently. That money too could go into the campaign trust fund

So do you think old Ross had something going here?

The system you described seems like it might work.

I was sort of mentally ruminating about it.

would be doable, byt building the "hype" and all that. Then the interst could keep it going.

Probably need to tweak some details about how to add to the next egg from time to time if needed but that should be a minor thing.

the richest would win! At best Warren Buffet ... at worst... who knows! But it would be BAD!

I feel like I'm supporting the issues I believe in.

Now why would I send my money to a fund to be used by candidates I don't agree with?

What would be the incentive for me to do that?

Wouldn't I rather take my kid on a weekend trip instead to Schlitterbahn?

I think the main problem would be the same as the check-off box on tax returns (which basically is what you're talking about) which is that hardly anyone donates to it.

SCOTUS held years ago that a candidate can spend all of his own money that he wants to.

The suggested system could work, but the contributions would have to be made tax-deductible. Charitable donations are deductible with the reasoning that they are good for the country. Clean political campaigns would be good for the country, too.

I thought his positions were great on every other issue. But on campaign financing, he blew it big time. He insisted it was evil for the government to provide funds for Presidential campaigns. He railed against the idea of public financing for campaigns.

You and I know that public campaign financing is the only way to go. It is inevitable. It will eventually happen. Private financing of campaigns equals legalized bribery, and that's what the US currently stands for. Eventually the people will grasp this rather obvious truism.

I actually liked Perot. But I hated his position against public financing of campaigns.