Should the Democratic Party reject all corporate contributions?

Total public financing is the solution to corporate influence in gov't.

Why are politicians in the business of buying elections in the first place?

When they are the ones that benefit.

The most heavily advertised candidate usually wins. Advertising costs money. More money good, less money bad.

K&U

:kick:

thanks.

Institute Candidate Election Broadcasts (similar to the UK)

Since a corporation has "personhood", why isn't each corporation limited to the $2000 maximum?

:hi:

The fix is beyond me. Public funding would exclude anyone but the existing parties and fossilize political thought. Lobbying effectively means those with the money (and it doesn't take that much) can buy key politicians and get everything they want. Disclosure doesn't achieve anything significant. I'm baffled.

for every 1000 dollars given to a candidate, the Candidate gets 200 dollars, 200 goes to his opponent in main election, and 200 to every primary challenger with some amount of signatures on a petition. The rest goes in a fund for when there is many primary challengers in some other districts.

But then the money would go to independent groups that ran advertisements. So for every advertisement ran on an issue, the person paying for the advertisement must pay for an advertisement in the same time slot by an opposing group, on the same channel.

Although finding what is an 'opposing' group would be difficult so any opposing group could petition as an opposing group and a lottery drawn citizen panel would review what group is most considered opposing, if it was a tri or quad opinion item, they would have to pay for all the groups to have equal time. Then before advertisement is ran, it would be submitted to panel, and opposing groups would have 2 days to review the Internet displayed advertisement and submit a rebuttal.

Bulk mailers would be under same requirement.

Any news coverage on events that effect society, as deemed by the lottery drawn citizen panel, would require rebuttal on next day if seen to be politically motivated.


It would hinder, if not remove, much of the influence of contributions over $1000.

If you say 'that would never happen, they would never allow it.' Then that means people think it is their country to set the rules. So the problem is yours if you don't even believe citizens should make the rules. People could make it happen if they wanted it to.

All that would have to happen is for the law to be passed in one town, then a few towns, then a few cities, finally states, then nation wide.

It is not an infringement of free speech, because no speech is stopped, just rules of debate are used when the speech is about social issues.

But since I ain't got nothin', I'm not going to criticize it broadly.

Untrue. Done well, it would undo the total domination of the 2 majors and would have a relatively low threshold for financing smaller parties.

supporting Parties?

They would never gain power. They have public finance in other countries, you know, and I don't see any new Hitlers coming to power through it. And if neo-Nazis were a viable party in the USA, you can be sure they'd get plenty of money from corporations.

Now that they have won two seats in the European Parliament, they are entitled to public money to spread their hate.

Their hate spreads fear.

Think of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Jeff Sessions, etc. We've had more racists in our government than that. And what's the trade-off? Sensible social policies? I'm not afraid of having David Duke in one seat of a much-less-corrupt congress.

stop throwing spit balls.

If you pledge not to throw spit balls you'll feel that you have done a good thing and that fairness should prevail.

But if your teammates have to stand in the batter's box knowing the opposing guy on the mound is going to throw spit balls at you, you're in effect forfeiting the game.

And that's no game at all.

you don't get elected to any high office without corporate support.