Should campaigns be entirely funded by federal money?

[Anti-fascist]

Politicians support whichever side is the higher bidder. Is there any way that campaigns can be funded entirely from federal money evenly distributed to the major parties? Will lobbying groups, corporations, etc. ever be banned from "funding" campaigns?

This stuff can be pretty dangerous for a country. AIPAC, for example, controls our foreign policy. Corporate donations, which always dwarf those of unions, make it impossible for politicians to work in the interests of the people.

Any thoughts?

[StClone]

1. Yes

But the money will keep the process privatized and controlled.

[Flying_Pig]

2. Yes.

Now.

[wtmusic]

3. Yes

This just seems like a no-brainer (unless you belong to a large corporate special interest).

[Clete]

4. It should, or something should, be done to

prevent special interests from contributing money. Also, campaign contributions give the minority with money to spend an advantage over the ordinary working American, which is not fair.

I think the federal government could give each candidate a certain amount of money to campaign on. Also, the candidates should meet certain criteria to receive money. The 130 candidates on the recall petition in California wouldn't have happened if this had been the case.

If each qualified candidate, who submitted an application to be a candidate, received a set amount of campaign funds, it would allow other Americans to run besides billionaires with inside connections. It would put guys like our President on the same level playing field as any other candidate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Yes

Not only that but TV spots should be
given in the same ammount to candidates on
both sides as a public service... like ahenm, sort of
kind off, what TV used to do when it was not
hyperconcentrated.

[camero]

10. TV spots should be free

In exchange for thier FCC license to broadcast. We all forget that the public owns the airwaves.

The answer to the question, IMO, is yes, with a twist. They can use private money for party activities such as get out the vote drives and paying for conventions. But all candidates should be held to public funds.

Edit: sorry, the second paragraph addresses the original post to save space.

[rock]

6. Yep.

People and companies should under no circumstanses be allowed to (ahem) contribute money to a politician. This is the dumbest thing we do in a Democracy.

[camero]

20. Thank the SCOTUS

for saying that money is speech. What a farce.

[wtmusic]

7. No.

I mean, yes.

[poskonig]

8. No. Without our special interest and grassroots money, we're toast.

If NOW wants to help fund a Democrat for example, more power to them.

Federalizing election dough helps no one except the corporate media.

[K-W]

11. It would need to be accompanied by strict reform

in advertising and other election issues including media coverage.

[poskonig]

12. I'm skeptical. CPR has created huge fundraising advantages for the Pubes.

I think we should loosen the restrictions and allow our interest groups and party activists to kick ass.

[laura888]

15. good point! The media provides free coverage

Rules that are drawn up would have to include rules for the media. This gets complicated.... but somehow I think its do-able.

[w4rma]

9. Yes. This would help enable campaigns to be won on message strength

instead of message repitition.

[LittleApple81]

13. Yes. Yes. Yes. n/t

[laura888]

14. Absolutely! Money should be taken out of the equation...

...this is probably our biggest problem today.

[Capn Sunshine]

16. Of course. and it will be

I guarantee you, after Howard Dean wins the presidency, the neocons will look at the "outside corporate interests populist based" internet funding model and immediately move for public financing only.

Then they will have to figure how to deal with internet funded PACS , such as MoveOn, which can easily raise 1 million plus in a wekend without anyone leaving home.

[TheYellowDog]

17. I think you mean taxpayer money

n/t.

[reprobate]

18. Take the profit motive out of politics? Surely you jest.

Substitute the word "bribery" for "campaign contributions".
See how easy it is to answer your question?

[leftofthedial]

19. yes

all and only federal money. Fixed amount for anyone qualifying with a set number of signatures on a qualifying petition.

[Yupster]

21. Always a loophole

We got a law passed after 10 years of fighting to limit contributions to $ 2,000. You would tink no one would be bought for $ 2,000.

Now I read there's some billionaire who's pledging I forget $ 10 million? or was it more to defeat Bush. He's using a PAC instead of donating to the party. Well I thought that was gotten rid of but I guess not. There was a thread on this donation not too long ago and the consensus opinion was that it was great what the billionaire was doing.

Then Indian tribes are giving millions to Bustamente. How can they do this when there's a law limiting donations to $ 20,000? Some other loophole. He's being sued, bt the election will be long over before he admits he was wrong and pays the fine.

Anyway, my point is that if we had public financing, it wouldn't stop the billionaires and the gambling interests from finding a way to get their big bucks into the system.

The disturbing thing to me is that most here on DU seem to support the big money as long as it goes into the Democratic Party.

I admire Howard Dean for being the first Democrat to raise money like the Republicans have always done it -- in smaller increments from millions of people. It really builds a base of support because once someone donates to you they have a stake in your campaign. Democrats have been yoked to their big money donors (unions, lawyers and millionaires) for way too long. I hope Dean can turn that around.

[Deja Q]

22. Anything other than "YES" is treating with the enemy and treason

Well, maybe not that harsh.

Corporate "donations" are a big reason why they get preferential treatment. It's not without reason why America is now "by, of, and for the corporation" (rather than "the people").

[uptohere]

23. so long as the amount is small and the message platform only, yes

I don't feel like subsidising the TV, radio and print industries. All I want to know is what you intend to do if elected.