pShould elections be publicly financed?

Results

60 %

40 %

Yes

@Jan '13 V 326 votes c 112 comments

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

326 Votes

u

1 hr
aladinsane endorsed Zazziness

v Yes
5 hr
BravoJuliet voted

v No
5 hr
BDS endorsed Zazziness

v Yes
15 hr
Jen13411 endorsed AndrewEvans

v Yes
Sun
jimbo375 voted

v No
Jun 15
Nonya voted

v No
Jun 15
Eady endorsed Bobolinsky

v No
Jun 13
dethkat666 endorsed DrFunkenstein

v Yes
Jun 13
susanblange voted

v Yes
Jun 12
usmom3 voted

v No
u

Jun 11
Rydad voted

v Yes
Jun 10
Rolltide endorsed texas_cutie75

v No
Jun 10
Republiccommi endorsed Zazziness

v Yes
Jun 8
jmiller94 endorsed MarkJM

v No
u

Jun 8
hancel voted

v Yes
Jun 7
JenniferLoni voted

v No
Jun 6

catiz

v Yes

Each candidate with equal financing is a dream but I would like it if my representatives weren't owned or obligated to anything but the people who put them in office.

Post
Jun 6
Old_Sarge voted

v No
Jun 6
7777777GGG voted

v Yes
Jun 6
stevesampson voted

v No
u

Jun 6
USN-22 voted

v Yes
Jun 6

mwr

v No

publicly fnanced means more taxes and more governemnt misspending.

Post
u

Jun 6

bajo

v No

But limit on what you can spend on a campaign. Almost always the guy with the most money wins.

Post
Jun 6
Vos-R voted

v No
u

Jun 5
Just_Lisa endorsed Bobolinsky

v No
u

Jun 4
Linebacker66 voted

v No
Jun 3
anotherperson voted

v No
u

Jun 2
Knoll37 voted

v Yes
Jun 2

DB-Grinberg K

Political and media analyst

v Yes

Getting money out of politics is at the heart of any national political campaign reform effort. Give back power to the people, not to Corporate America and the super-richest 1% of Americans who now exert undue influence over electoral outcomes. Power to the People!

Post
Jun 2

FollowTheMoney

v No

Nor should they be financed by business. Not a single dime should come from outside the candidates district. Campaign contributions should be limited to $10.00 per US citizen.

Post
Jun 1
alikatz voted

v Yes
Jun 1
LHoran voted

v No
Jun 1
rtoberl voted

v No
Jun 1
H311RA151N voted

v No
u

May 31
aledar voted

v No
May 30
O_S_Thomas endorsed Bobolinsky

v No
u

May 30
DIAMONDG81 voted

v Yes
u

May 30
Texasbuzz voted

v No
May 29
rattlersn endorsed MarkJM

v No
u

May 28
Libertyboy endorsed Bobolinsky

v No
u

May 28
DaQuietOne endorsed mtkopf

v No
May 28
Laz voted

v Yes
May 26
DMMc voted

v No
u

May 26
RealTexan endorsed Zazziness

v Yes
May 25

JTHEM

v Yes

It is the only way to keep out private interests.

r7 replies

Post
May 25

Concerned_Cit

v No

Define "publicly".

Post
May 25
Carach endorsed Bobolinsky

v No
u

May 25
sspphoto endorsed DrFunkenstein

v Yes
u

May 24
debido endorsed MarkJM

v No
May 24

Nurse8493

v No

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

Post

Jun 6

catiz

v Yes

Each candidate with equal financing is a dream but I would like it if my representatives weren't owned or obligated to anything but the people who put them in office.

Post
Jun 6

mwr

v No

publicly fnanced means more taxes and more governemnt misspending.

Post
u

Jun 6

bajo

v No

But limit on what you can spend on a campaign. Almost always the guy with the most money wins.

Post
Jun 2

DB-Grinberg K

Political and media analyst

v Yes

Getting money out of politics is at the heart of any national political campaign reform effort. Give back power to the people, not to Corporate America and the super-richest 1% of Americans who now exert undue influence over electoral outcomes. Power to the People!

Post
Jun 2

FollowTheMoney

v No

Nor should they be financed by business. Not a single dime should come from outside the candidates district. Campaign contributions should be limited to $10.00 per US citizen.

Post
May 25

JTHEM

v Yes

It is the only way to keep out private interests.

r7 replies

Post
u

May 28

Libertyboy

True, but privatly financed elections are the only way to keep out the incumbant's interests.

@Libertyboy Post
May 29

JTHEM

@Libertyboy Privately financed elections are part of the problem. It is a mixed bag. However, it is our system as such. I don't see how a good modestly financed candidate can overcome these financial disadvantages.

@JTHEM Post
u

May 29

Libertyboy

@JTHEM If you can't raise enough money, you probably aren't a good candidate because nobody will support you. Just sayin.

@Libertyboy Post
May 29

JTHEM

@Libertyboy We are not talking about a few hundred thousand dollars. We are talking millions and especially from outside sources. A good candidate might miss the opportunity for equal coverage on TV and radio/billboards, etc.

@JTHEM Post
u

Jun 1

Libertyboy

@JTHEM Why? If your truly a good candidate, and you have just one relatively large city of people willing to donate just $1 a piece, that's millions of dollars right there to jump start things. And you only need that much, really, if your running for President or maybe Senate.

@Libertyboy Post
Load more replies >
May 25

Concerned_Cit

v No

Define "publicly".

Post
May 24

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 '13

JohnnyDee

v No

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

Post
May '13

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!!!!

r1 reply

Post
u

May 28

Libertyboy

You go ahead and do that. Meanwhile, I'll be playing on my iPod, something I know small business nor government could have created, and something I enjoy.

@Libertyboy Post
May '13

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
o

May '13

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 '13

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 '13

AlexNWA

v Yes

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

Post
u

May '13

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 '13

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.

@marysrus13 Post
u

May '13

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...

@Gatnos Post
May '13

harold_lloyd

v Yes

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

Post
May '13

busseja

v No

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

Post
May '13

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
R Load more comments...

Jan '13

Bobolinsky

v No

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

B2

e34 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

Zazziness

v Yes

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

r3 replies

e32 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

e22 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

e8 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

e6 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
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

e3 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

Post