pShould elections be publicly financed?

Next>

Results

59 %

41 %

Yes

@Jan '13 c 99 comments V 282 votes

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

282 Votes

3 hr

JTHEM

v Yes

It is the only way to keep out private interests.

Post
8 hr

Concerned_Cit

v No

Define "publicly".

Post
15 hr
Carach endorsed Bobolinsky

v No
u

Sat
sspphoto endorsed DrFunkenstein

v Yes
u

Fri
debido endorsed MarkJM

v No
Fri

Nurse8493

v No

Forcing people to be financing elections, is like forcing people to pay taxes!

Post
Thu
MarkColwell endorsed Zazziness

v Yes
u

Thu
CivilWarSam endorsed Bobolinsky

v No
u

May 23

acg

v No

Publicly financed means tax payer financed and seeing as most of these people can run on their own dime I think they should be required to.

Post
May 22
littlewolf8469 voted

v No
u

May 22
HMB1114 voted

v No
u

May 22
GunPolitics endorsed mtkopf

v No
May 21
Amy2723 voted

v No
May 21
9MileTrucking voted

v No
u

May 20
DesignerLM voted

v No
May 19
looncraz endorsed Zazziness

v Yes
May 18
doggie_luv voted

v No
May 18
tomtheterrible endorsed MarkJM

v No
May 18

LEC

v Yes

But only if we can stop PACs and others from financing candidates above what the People allow.

Post
May 18
Fitz endorsed Bobolinsky

v No
May 17

JohnnyDee

v No

Gads,,, NO! Imagine if politicians were given access to our tax money for their campaigns! YOWZA!

Post
u

May 17
DrSilicon voted

v Yes
May 16

Jaybird1964

v Yes

As opposed to what is happening now!!! Large Corporations and rick assholes control our country!!! If we would just not buy anything for a week that might open their eyes!!!!

Post
May 15

Aftermath

v Yes

I went with yes, because it seems that even though it is another expense that does little good, it would offer the chance to run to normal people rather than being exclusively for thieves and crooks with wads of illicit cash.

Post
May 15

Goose

v No

They're pretty good at spending our money after they get elected. They don't need to be starting earlier.

Post
May 15

marysrus13

v Yes

THE US, STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL government "buys" air time for region-wide broadcast events and pays to host WEB PAGES for the Candidates. That's it, NOTHING else is allowed as campaigning. All news outlets/media are BANNED from ANY coverage, so there is no question about "selling the election." All media is BANNED from accepting ads with ANY political campaign content. Only factual reporting (without commentary or analysis) of Legislative and Executive Agency action along with Polling Places and Times may be Published or Broadcast. Heck, we should even call in and maintain a UN Election Commission and UN Media Review Commission to ensure these standards are followed...

Post
May 15
Koma voted

v Yes
May 14

AlexNWA

v Yes

We need to go back to a Government BY the people, not one where they BUY the people.

Post
May 13
Calfkiller endorsed Zazziness

v Yes
May 12
rangerjeff voted

v No
u

May 12

Gatnos

v No

Now they want the taxpayer to pay for campaigns. Just another excuse to reach deeper into our pockets. This is a terrible idea because it will cause people to be financially supporting candidates (through taxes) that they don't approve of. Campaign finance reform has been a battle cry of the left for several decades. They claim it is to keep the special interest money at bay. A better idea would be to limit the amount of money that candidates can spend in a campaign. Tie it to the GNP, allowing a certain percent of the GNP based upon the office being pursued.

r2 replies

Post
u

May 12
zoomer339 voted

v No
u

May 12
skspls voted

v Yes
May 12
Mournwolf voted

v Yes
May 12
warwil630 voted

v No
u

May 12
gherlone voted

v No
May 12
Fyi1957 endorsed Bobolinsky

v No
May 12
silentrunning endorsed Zazziness

v Yes
May 12
Bill2E endorsed Bobolinsky

v No
May 12
DennyinFLA endorsed Bobolinsky

v No
u

May 12
SESCOMM voted

v No
u

May 12
Leonard endorsed Zazziness

v Yes
May 11
Dawns voted

v No
u

May 11
PWM endorsed Fishbone345

v No
May 11

harold_lloyd

v Yes

I just don't see any way to do it with this Supreme Court.

Post
u

May 10
nagydonnac voted

v Yes
May 10
whatheheck endorsed MarkJM

v No
u

May 10
captbigtime endorsed MarkJM

v No
May 10
AndrewMC voted

v Yes
u

May 10
pezcore64 voted

v Yes

3 hr

JTHEM

v Yes

It is the only way to keep out private interests.

Post
8 hr

Concerned_Cit

v No

Define "publicly".

Post
Fri

Nurse8493

v No

Forcing people to be financing elections, is like forcing people to pay taxes!

Post
u

May 23

acg

v No

Publicly financed means tax payer financed and seeing as most of these people can run on their own dime I think they should be required to.

Post
May 18

LEC

v Yes

But only if we can stop PACs and others from financing candidates above what the People allow.

Post
May 17

JohnnyDee

v No

Gads,,, NO! Imagine if politicians were given access to our tax money for their campaigns! YOWZA!

Post
May 16

Jaybird1964

v Yes

As opposed to what is happening now!!! Large Corporations and rick assholes control our country!!! If we would just not buy anything for a week that might open their eyes!!!!

Post
May 15

Aftermath

v Yes

I went with yes, because it seems that even though it is another expense that does little good, it would offer the chance to run to normal people rather than being exclusively for thieves and crooks with wads of illicit cash.

Post
May 15

Goose

v No

They're pretty good at spending our money after they get elected. They don't need to be starting earlier.

Post
May 15

marysrus13

v Yes

THE US, STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL government "buys" air time for region-wide broadcast events and pays to host WEB PAGES for the Candidates. That's it, NOTHING else is allowed as campaigning. All news outlets/media are BANNED from ANY coverage, so there is no question about "selling the election." All media is BANNED from accepting ads with ANY political campaign content. Only factual reporting (without commentary or analysis) of Legislative and Executive Agency action along with Polling Places and Times may be Published or Broadcast. Heck, we should even call in and maintain a UN Election Commission and UN Media Review Commission to ensure these standards are followed...

Post
May 14

AlexNWA

v Yes

We need to go back to a Government BY the people, not one where they BUY the people.

Post
u

May 12

Gatnos

v No

Now they want the taxpayer to pay for campaigns. Just another excuse to reach deeper into our pockets. This is a terrible idea because it will cause people to be financially supporting candidates (through taxes) that they don't approve of. Campaign finance reform has been a battle cry of the left for several decades. They claim it is to keep the special interest money at bay. A better idea would be to limit the amount of money that candidates can spend in a campaign. Tie it to the GNP, allowing a certain percent of the GNP based upon the office being pursued.

r2 replies

Post
May 15

marysrus13

No, this would just be the FCC Public Service time requirement, perhaps expanded an hour or two during a two-week lead-up to the Election. The FCC could also rule about and police a certain amount of INTERNET "transmission territory" as part of spectrum management. Public Service ads must be factual in content and only address a known public-policy issue. There are already means and way in place - but most of the US Pubic are unaware of them.

Post @marysrus13
u

May 16

Gatnos

@marysrus13 Wow! You sure did read more into the question than I did. "Publicly Financed Elections," sounds exactly as I described: campaigns financed by the taxpayers. But what you describe here is even scarier. "Public Service time requirement" is code for requiring the media to donate time for these campaign announcements. That just boils down to theft of property without proper compensation. Policing the internet is another infringement on free speech. Your naÃ¯ve concept that campaign ads would be factual ignores history. And what branch of government would be doing all this policing and fact checking. I certainly hope not any under the direct control of the ad...

Post @Gatnos
May 11

harold_lloyd

v Yes

I just don't see any way to do it with this Supreme Court.

Post
May 8

busseja

v No

don'twe pay enough for the damage these folks do already?

Post
May 8

Bob72370

v No

I would like to see campaign spending limited to the salary to be earned during one term. In other words if the salary of the President of the US is $400,000 per year and the term is four years then the spending limit should be $1.6 million, and it should come from the salary, not donations. Let them pay their own way for a change, political office should not be a profession, it should be a service.

Post
May 5

Clara007

v Yes

Our federal campaign process needs a serious overhaul. Ever since the Supreme Court struck down a huge part of the McCain-Feingold (ah...yes, remember the good old days when GOP and Dem worked together to GET SOMETHING DONE?) campaign finance bill political contributions by corporations and unions have sky-rocketed. Too much money is being spent on campaigns, paid advertising has become too big a factor in elections, campaigns are too long, and the public is losing trust in our political system. We need to set limits on the amount of money that can be accepted by a campaign and we need to shorten our campaigns. Apparently our last presidential/congressional campaign...

Post
u

May 5

DotsonB

v No

Not in anyway. But there does need to be laws that are actually enforceable on how much super pacs and lobbyists can give their candidate.

Post
o

Apr 30

TheHandsomeOne

v Yes

Their cost to the public should and could very easily be virtually zilch Any person with a reasonable amount of supporting signatures should not only be allowed to run for office, all candidates should be allowed equal only access to the people. Get the money out of politics at all levels. 1 representative per 15,000 people to whom they shall be accountable AND serve. Online campaign platforms with time and space equally divided and public tv only.

Post
Apr 28

Prime_Meridian

v Yes

Yes, the amounts of money politicians spend on gaining public office is obscene. A smaller amount of money available also means we, the viewing/listening public will also be bombarded by FEWER AND LESS FREQUENT OBNOXIOUS POLITICAL ADS!

Post
u

Apr 26

Greenjeans

v Yes

That would be one way to get corporate money out of politics. Another would be to make corporate donations and lobbying illegal. Our representatives are supposed to be working for the humans who elected them.

B1

r3 replies

Post
Apr 27

marine1

Would the same apply to unions also along with other privat special interest?

Post @marine1
u

Apr 27

Greenjeans

@marine1 OK, no private donations, including from the political parties. No fund raising dinners or pig roasts or gun raffles. Give each candidate an amount equal to ten times the annual salary of the office, limit the campaign period to 60 days, and turn 'em loose. Then we'd see the lobby factions focus directly on the voter, probably, but there would be no back-room deals. The Democratic candidate in WV-01, who was running against a millionaire, lost the last election because there was no support from the state or national party. The state Supreme Court elections in WV are publicly funded now.

Post @Greenjeans
Apr 27

marine1

@Greenjeans i like it

Post @marine1
R Load more comments...

Jan '13

Bobolinsky

v No

"Publicly financed" means "government financed" and "government financed" means "government controlled."

B2

e30 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

Zazziness

v Yes

It is the only way to stop elections going to the highest bidder.

r3 replies

e28 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

MarkJM

v No

If these idiots want to run for office, then they can pay for it, not the taxpayers.

B2

e20 endorsed

Post
o

Jan '13

AndrewEvans

v Yes

If we could accomplish a few things with it. 1: Prevent all 1% elitists, or those of royal bloodlines, or globalists money sources, from applying for office. 2: Ban all contributions from any other entity so all candidates are on equal footing. 3. Hold fair debates where candidates have equal amounts of time to speak. 4. Allow a public unbiased media to present everything related to the elections to keep "special interest" media from having a monopoly of their injected perception, or fraud, in public opinion. My basic point, is to take all advantages away from those who would buy influence, whether by their own hand or through special interests so We The People can vo...

B2

r4 replies

e7 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

Fishbone345

v No

No, but I'd like to see spending limits on campaigns. Everyone should have an equal chance when running for office. Doing it the way it's been done has given us corruption and ineptitude in DC.

B1

e7 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

DrFunkenstein

v Yes

Take money out of politics, ban all funding from outside sources and eliminate that use of money as power. I want all of these PACs, Superpacs and outside groups allowing the few to control out elections. Foreign countries can buy our elections as it stands and this is completely unacceptable. Public Finance all elections. Campaigning begins one month before the election and not one cent can be spent other than the allotted budget set by the taxpayers. No one should spent billions of dollars for a job that pays $400K a year

B2

e5 endorsed

Post
u

Jan '13

mtkopf

v No

No but the whole system needs to be overhauled. First, I would outlaw ALL PACs and superPACS. Second, just like colleges have a limited period to engage recruits, I would have a limited timeframe in which candidates, including incumbents, have to seek financial support. This would include all monies from lobbyists also. Finally, after the election, any money left over in campaign account would be forfeited to the govt. This accomplishes leveling the playing field, not giving incumbents a "campaign war chest". Also, it actually may limit campaign donations, meaning we won'tbe bombarded with negative tTV ads for months prior to an election. Finally, any money forfeit...

B2

e2 endorsed

Post
o

Jan '13

Sharpshooter

v No

THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY POOR QUESTION.... No supporting information for a question that can be interpreted several ways.... Aren't they publicly financed now? OR is the question suggesting Government Financing of elections as in the UK. Not publicly financed meaning the candidates are allowed to only spend their own money? When in doubt... I just vote NO because I'm a contrary sort....

B4

Post
Jan '13

WMCOL

v No

No, unless it limits all candidates similarly situated to the same amount of financial support.

B1

e3 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

DerivePI

v No

"Translation for Dummies" - Would you rather have politicans be subserviant to you and your donations or some "public" entity?
- B2
- e1 endorsed