Real Campaign Finance Reform

We ought to be aware that how much money each candidate can increase largely influences the outcome of our elections. Whoever can raise the cash has the most chance of swaying the uninformed’swing’ voter, or even selecting the adviser that will dice the polls to figure out which issues will give them the small majority. raising money politics becomes.

Every time I heard pleas for money from politicians I wonder, what do you want my money for? To buy airwaves back in the people they were licensed by us to? To cover higher priced consultants and dice the polls? I thought I hunted with my vote, not my own dollars. What about those who don’t have dollars? Sounds to me they have less of a vote within this democracy. Hell, if you have enough money you can just fund your campaign, al. la. Ross Perot. Not equal opportunity.

== It’s morally wrong for politicians to take money from individuals. Period. ==

I believe it’s morally wrong for officials to take. If an elected official accepts money any human will feel obliged to treat this individual differently. It’s common courtesy. But that can be in conflict with their obligation to represent their electorate equally, not based on how much money they have all. In actuality, since everyone does it, all officers are effectively needed to to accept presents to compete.

I understand the present reality of the election campaign process is mired in a far different deal, but my”innocent, absent of fact” view is that _money_ should not be a factor in our elections, and it’s the obligation of the government we’ve made to make sure that happens. Elections are the one thing we all could agree is the duty of the self-government, the one thing which produces the rest of our propaganda work. But the fact in the US today is that even though we all possess a’vote’, those with money can use that money to create their’vote’ more valuable those with no money. The McCain/Feingold reforms[1] can make this worse, as today campaigns require these additional”vote with your dollars” votes even more. We need to correct this.

How can we fix it? ==

I would start with making it illegal for those running for elected office to take money or gifts from any non-profit, corporate, religious or private thing or elected officials. All election campaigns should be 100. Arguments about the cost of that are absurd. If we all could agree that elections are a obligation of government, we could agree that this duty can call for commensurate funds.

Second, instead of charging station owners for a license to broadcast on our airwaves, then we being charged by them back to them for the best to conduct the public’s business on those airwaves, lets just not give it to them at the first location. The license includes the burden of election commercials that are broadcasting. Decrease the license fee should you want to. I am fine with all our authorities posture the financial brunt. Senatorial campaigns and the 2004 Presidential spent approximately billion dollars[2]. Considering we cover about 0 [3] annually to support our country debt (incurred nearly exclusively by Regan/Bush I/Bush II[4])I would not have any issues if the expense to perform this ran to the -20 billion/year selection. It ought to be one of the major functions of the government to equalize the situation, to eliminate money from the equation.

Third, these elected officials would be paid a good deal more by me. If senators created million they would have a more difficult time their nephew could be given by a few lobbyist. If we are going to achieve this we ought to create their wages on the same amount as leaders of prestige. We ought to tie their wages to the average of corporate leader’s wages; it might serve as incentive to be companies thrive. But we ought to pay them enough that other people’s money won’t affect them. Spending our elected officials is one of the few points we can all agree our authorities ought to be responsible for, the miniscule about of money required to cover them should not be a factor.

== But if you don’t give money…? ==

A question I am not sure about to you be eligible to have your effort funded? I think that it ought to be accessible and as open . But it should not be _ _ easy. Being a public official needs _work_, therefore work_ ought to be required to eventually become one. I want this work_ to be something other than raising money. Being good at getting people to part with their money does not necessarily indicate they will be a representative.

By giving money we show support. If you can’t give _ money _ to state support, how can we make sure that individuals actually have or may get some support among the electorate and running, and spending money on those campaigns, aren’t operating a boondoggle? (Even when a big chunk the money we spent on publicly funded election campaigns was wasted on boondoggles, we’d still have a better system that we have today, imo. The machinery of democracy is a better place than many to throw some cash around.)

A solution is to offer the option of altering the distribution of campaign contributions derived your taxes? Your own tax contributions allotted for campaigns could be split evenly among all the campaigns, as most people would do if it did not alter. You can direct a few of your tax dollars that are allocated specifically, if you cared for a campaign.

Additionally, what about the rich using their currency to outspend competitions? Do we prohibit people from spending their money in their campaigns?