• #7
    I would perfer that any candidate seriously desiring consideration be given $1,000,000 and no other funds be allowed. Period.

    In that way, there would be equal time for all messages.

    The single source of debate should be PBS.

    Between Obama and Romney in Ohio alone they spent over $100,000,000.00.

    Think of all that wasted money and how much good it could have done.
  • #35
    Totally agree, a billion of wasted money on these elections when it could have been making our country a better place. It's a sad state of politics.
  • #17
    They know there is no way such a suit will be settled in time for any additional monies to be spent. The point of the suit is to gain a little free publicity and point out the stranglehold that the two major parties have on the process.
  • #6
    I'd rather have a fair election funded by nothing but tax dollars as opposed to lobbyist funding, back scratching, and candidates getting into office owing favors. Crazy right?
  • #11
    @dances-weebles That would be nice, but we'd still find ourselves in a situation where someone got into the white house with ill-gotten gains.
  • #15
    Not to mention the fact that the rich would win even more than they do now. I think the system at the moment is right, but it should be mandatory for parties to use only that money. New parties and obvious 3rd party candidates should get a slightly inflated weighting because of the enormity of the two major parties, and the fact that the media only ever discusses those two parties. Also, 3rd party candidates should be invited to debates, of which there should be more.
  • R Load more replies

  • #31
    Gov. Johnson is a joke, and a whack. He wants to become POTUS just to legalize marijuana. He could care less about running and helping the nation. He's been in it for the wrong reasons.
  • #26
    Say it ain't so Gary. Being a Libertarian myself I find this offensive and a betrayal. I can only hope this is some tacit he's using to get a judge to end all government campaign financing. If not he needs to get out of the welfare line. It's embarrassing and shameful.
  • #20
    I thought Libertarians believed in individual freedom, etc.. That being the case
    he should come up with his "individual" way of paying for his campaign...
  • #44
    Will it depends obanaobana and Romney ate getting tax payers moneys . And if Gary Johnson shouldint get the funds from the tax payers for his Campagin then nither should Romney and Obama now u guys want to calk Gary Johnson a hipacrit go right a head but dount give obama and Romney a pass with your vote thats what Nazis do vote for goode or some one if you dount like Johnson and quit being hipacrits and dount put it all on Gary be fair when crtiseing and dount give an inch
  • #33
    And what do you call raising taxes, free government paid phones, insurance, and college funds for illegals, if not taxes and entitlements?
  • #29
    No, as long as tax payer money is being offered by government there's nothing wrong with accepting it especially when the money is giving others an unfair advantage.
  • #27
    I'm not opposed to it because I'm sick and tired of Republicans and Democrats making rules that eliminate viable opposition candidates from having a shot at winning. We need more competition because the two-party system is a miserable failure. They claim to want competition in the private business sector but make rules to eliminate competition in politics. The real hypocrites are self-serving Republicans and Democrats.
  • R Load more comments...