Are You for 100% Public Funding of Presidential Elections?

why you should be:

levels the playing field, keeps big money from influencing excessively, makes the process inherently fair and equitable.

why you may not be:

money doesn't buy votes per se, it is my right to spend as much as I want on my election, it is un-American to restrict me, who cares if Bloomberg and Steyer blow their fortunes for 3-7% of the vote, none of my concern or business.

I support public funding IN PRINCIPLE. but it won't work unless other measures are taken, such as blocking fake Russian ads on Facebook, reducing "excess" Media bias, restricting 3rd party donations that circumvent the process, and disguise themselves as something else.

what the fuck.. the system will never work satisfactorily, no matter what law you try to pass.. I would start with, say, a total direct spending limit for each campaign.. it's not perfect, far from it, but at least it will slash total DIRECT spending.. that is worth doing, in my view.

I knew it, LOL..

nobody cares about this subject.. offer a topic for reason, debate and insight, you guys flee. no insult material here..

I already predicted what guys would think.. I should have predicted that you are predictable

Mmmmm, we already give politicians control over our money but let's set it up so they have control over who gets funding for elections. What could go wrong? Would an incumbent ever lose office?

Absolutely not.
Almost a trillion reasons, don't get me started.

No. I believe the media/public should hold more debates/forums/reporting to inform the people. I believe outside money should be banned from supporting candidates. "Money = Free Speech" is one of the worst and stupidest rulings by our Supreme Court. A candidate can spend their own money on their campaign, but no outside help. Groups can spend money on issues, but not to support or attack candidates or parties.


Funny thing, last presidential cycle, I learned that political parties aren't considered public organizations. But the public bears the costs for primary elections.

why you should be:

levels the playing field, keeps big money from influencing excessively, makes the process inherently fair and equitable.

why you may not be:

money doesn't buy votes per se, it is my right to spend as much as I want on my election, it is un-American to restrict me, who cares if Bloomberg and Steyer blow their fortunes for 3-7% of the vote, none of my concern or business.

I support public funding IN PRINCIPLE. but it won't work unless other measures are taken, such as blocking fake Russian ads on Facebook, reducing "excess" Media bias, restricting 3rd party donations that circumvent the process, and disguise themselves as something else.

what the fuck.. the system will never work satisfactorily, no matter what law you try to pass.. I would start with, say, a total direct spending limit for each campaign.. it's not perfect, far from it, but at least it will slash total DIRECT spending.. that is worth doing, in my view. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I would vote in favor of not doing it so as to lessen federal control over our lives. I think big money would find a way to get advantages no matter what system is set up - just ask OJ about buying justice.

(I follow him on twitter and he never mentions the subject)

Absolutely not. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Fuck No!

Here's what you'd get ..... Room of Loons ......



Even suggesting the idea demonstrates the lack of interest of U.S. voters in those LOONS being anywhere near the White House. Money talks and bullshit walks!

why you should be:

levels the playing field, keeps big money from influencing excessively, makes the process inherently fair and equitable.

why you may not be:

money doesn't buy votes per se, it is my right to spend as much as I want on my election, it is un-American to restrict me, who cares if Bloomberg and Steyer blow their fortunes for 3-7% of the vote, none of my concern or business.

I support public funding IN PRINCIPLE. but it won't work unless other measures are taken, such as blocking fake Russian ads on Facebook, reducing "excess" Media bias, restricting 3rd party donations that circumvent the process, and disguise themselves as something else.

what the fuck.. the system will never work satisfactorily, no matter what law you try to pass.. I would start with, say, a total direct spending limit for each campaign.. it's not perfect, far from it, but at least it will slash total DIRECT spending.. that is worth doing, in my view. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I knew it, LOL..

nobody cares about this subject.. offer a topic for reason, debate and insight, you guys flee. no insult material here..

I already predicted what guys would think.. I should have predicted that you are predictable Originally Posted by Chung Tran

WOW, it was a whole 26 minutes until your righteous indignation and all about me and my thread comes out. Really 26 minutes for you to determine no one cares. You have this habit of trying to play the holier than thou card at every turn. It's getting old.

But as to your topic above, it's funny how this comes up when it's the Dems on the losing side of the contributions and money.

As you suggest in one point regarding the direct spending limit per campaign, that was already tried with the availability of public funding to the candidates. Obama shattered that glass ceiling when he reneged on accepting public funding and it's limitations. It's now a largely dead issue for those who can raise vast dollars.

And for your point regarding "bias" in the media, you would indeed have to basically put a gag order on election coverage if you are really looking for "fair". Direct money is only a small piece of it. Trump got Billions of dollars in free advertising, albeit the attempts were to denigrate him.

Unless you totally close the system, which I consider totally Un-American, then you continue with a capitalistic style election process.

well NO and well No

WOW, it was a whole 26 minutes until your righteous indignation and all about me and my thread comes out. Originally Posted by eccielover

Sort of confirms his purpose for posting .... attention hound!

Names calling and scatologies seems to be all yous gots. I’m curious as to why yous and your pals would be against a leveled playing fields for elections. Didn’t Trump continually complain that everything was rigged against him? Or am I thinking or another worthless lying piece of shit?

An intelligent electorate is the answer and we can forget about that. I have to admit, for all the many and I do mean many idiots we put in office, we don't do all that bad.


My position has and always will be, money doesn't mean shit, just ask Jeb Bush and now we have Bloomberg and Steyer to prove the point. For all of Warren and Sanders caterwauling

about billionaires buying elections, it won't happen with those two because of money but it might happen if Bloomberg continues to represent the only sane ( barely ) person running.


Intelligent people vote on issues not personalities or money.



I had a good laugh from one of my many Progressive friends when he said "we should all be worried about the revenge Trump will take if re-elected over being impeached". Yeah, we might have even more jobs and a higher stock market! That'll teach those bastards!

Seriously???

Opps,sorry Chung. I am not for public funding.

Names calling and scatologies seems to be all yous gots. And all you got is a fake Candian account. Whoa, I bet you are think you are a winner with that one. I’m curious as to why yous and your pals would be against a leveled playing fields for elections. And what would you know about a level playing field since you have fake accounts? Didn’t Trump continually complain that everything was rigged against him? No Or am I thinking or another worthless lying piece of shit?Yes, you are thinking of Yssup. Your other ECCIE account. Originally Posted by HoeHummer

Names calling and scatologies seems to be all yous gots. I’m curious as to why yous and your pals would be against a leveled playing fields for elections. Didn’t Trump continually complain that everything was rigged against him? Or am I thinking or another worthless lying piece of shit? Originally Posted by HoeHummer

Yea, you must be thinking of YR.

WOW, it was a whole 26 minutes until your righteous indignation and all about me and my thread comes out. Really 26 minutes for you to determine no one cares. You have this habit of trying to play the holier than thou card at every turn. It's getting old.
Originally Posted by eccielover

nonsense Pitt Boy. where do you get Holier than thou out of my saying no one cares? it's a fucking question, I don't give two shits whether you give a shit. Shit Boy, um Pitt Boy.