To Topple US 'Oligarchy,' Sanders Calls for Publicly Financed Elections

a reply to: FyreByrd

Seriously, I'm really worried that Bernie is going to turn out like the Democrat Ron Paul. He keeps saying these things that the rich don't like, and he will be kicked to the curb REAL quick. That being said, I'm pulling for the man. D, R, or otherwise, if he runs and looks like he has some integrity, I'll vote for him.

originally posted by: Metallicus
The problem with Bernie is he wants to use 'public funds' to solve every problem. Socialism isn't the solution to our problems.

Why shouldn't public funds go to electing public officials?

originally posted by: Metallicus
The problem with Bernie is he wants to use 'public funds' to solve every problem. Socialism isn't the solution to our problems.

But corporate funded governments is a good idea? How's that then?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
The problem with Bernie is he wants to use 'public funds' to solve every problem. Socialism isn't the solution to our problems.

Why shouldn't public funds go to electing public officials?

People see the T-word and oppose it by default, but I'm perfectly fine having my taxes go toward fixing our broken system. The democratic process is to important to allow this disenfranchisement continue.

Hi guys,

Thought I'd add some food for thought.

One way or another, funding is required to run campaigns.... How and where is that money to come from?

If it is corporations, they have plenty of money, but will buy your slavery.

If it is public funds (ie taxes), the government will take as much as you allow them and they don't have to deliver anything in your favour. Take for instance, the idea as to who should be allowed to campaign. Citizen watches, to figure out who should be allowed to campaign? Who are selected for these - and what is the process for finding these individuals with so much volunteer time on their hands?

There is also no rule that prevents anyone from taking funds from their own pockets (or is there?) - add to that government funding, or corporate funding - take your pick.

One way or another it is money - it either comes from getting it from the public, or getting it from private resources... Can't be avoided.

Hi guys,

That being said - Ross Perot once ran unsuccessfully....

originally posted by: Primordial

Rather than them donate money, donate time and ad space. Running for office shouldn't cost a fortune.

And if Congress and the House don't want to pass that bill into law..........that's what executive orders are for. And this should go for any elected position, not just the POTUS.

It's the best idea I've heard so far.

Bernie reminds me a lot of Ron Paul. I don't really know much about him but just from the surface he seems to have some of the same values. I love this idea and think it's a must.

Set aside time for people to put up ads???

Now you have the problem of connections required to get the MSM to give you the time of day.... Guess who that will go to?

a reply to: FyreByrd

I have to say, there's a lot of interesting stuff about Bernie. He plays populist politics like no other.

Having said that, I'd have to say he's dead wrong on this one. The all time best and surest way to topple the US Oligarchy is to let the States go their own way. That would fix far more problems than any election could ever do.

Here's my bit:

I don't like Sanders. He's to old, in fact were he elected, he would be 75 by the time he swears his oath of office. If he won two elections, he would be 83 and on his way out, thus not worrying or having to live with the craps he passses or sets precedents for, and to me that doesn't quite sit right.

All that being said, the idea doesn't sound bad in concept. Here's a suggestion though. Instead of arguing amongst ourselves whether this is bad because it might sound socialist-ish and rambling on about how x amount of the population provided y amount of election funds, how about we try and figure out how this could be manipulated for political gain, think of ways to prevent it and then decide if it would be worth it.

To me it doesn't sound like a bad idea. I imagine a systemtthough that, instead of using public funds, aka another tax, we still allow private and even corporate donations into a blind pool that is overseen by an equal bipartisan ELECTED committee that distributes the money evenly between candidates of both parties proportional to the office being run. An example would be a House rep race distributing $1 million to each candidate, 10 million to each Senate candidate, 100 million to each Presidential candidate. Basically proportional to each level of representation. A House rep running for a single voting district doesn't need the same funding as a person running for state senator.

I know there are things I have missed, but I am typing this on my phone. We need to be discussing the options here not arguing about socialism and the history of the Corporation in Politics.

Cap the amounts accruable and denotable for election funding for starters, the amount of money accrued is ludicrous.

Public fund with a cap. I don't see why anyone needs to spend anything over 2 million which is also ludicrous.

Make them stand on policy and proven track record instead of a media blitzkrieg.

Even out the playing field.

Yep I'm up for that.

This is a good sentiment, but I think the real root of the problem is career politicians.

If all elected positions had actual term rules (I.E. a two term limit like the president), the money raising aspect would be hugely curtailed and almost moot, lobbyist would have to start their brown nosing from scratch every new term, people would get more solid representation across the board.

At the same token, if its a crap person that is elected because the people of the state are that lazy...then that person only gets 2 terms....unlike these 2 morons:

Jesse Helms served as Republican Senator from North Carolina from 1973-2003....30 freaking years??? Even if your good you shouldn't be in an elected office that long.

Or this retard:

Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina served as a Senator for the second longest term ever, nearly 48 years, first as a Democrat from 1954 to 1964. (he fought civil rights tooth and nail, called martin luther king a communist, and other ass-burger douchebaggery.)

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Did you not say this?

..........is that a joke? Because they are paragons of not breaking the law or circumventing?

How can you actually say that with a straight face

If you do not wish to receive attitude and snarkiness in return, perhaps you should be more aware of the tone you set when speaking to others.

You know, treat others as you wish to be treated.

Your reply was "the law"

Yes, it all begins with a law. Considering that we are a nation of laws, we must first pass a law making the act illegal. Since we all know politicians will try to circumvent that law, we must also be vigilant citizens and hold them accountable. As part of that process we should also revert back to the corporate charter we had in place long ago, in which it was illegal for a corporation to put money in to elections.

How can we stop them from buying elections if it's perfectly legal?

So it all begins with a law.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
The problem with Bernie is he wants to use 'public funds' to solve every problem. Socialism isn't the solution to our problems.

Why shouldn't public funds go to electing public officials?

The same reason public funds shouldn't go to NPR and their one sided network(equal air time my ass)
and PBS's endless infomercials to donate money to them and receive some crappy
book about ADHD..
PUBLIC FUNDS ???
NOW WE have to pay to fund someone we do not
agree with as a candidate at all...

Its just more ways to milk the american people.. Bernie Danders'

This is the most important thing we can do to help the United States. Get money out of the election. It

Well that was hilarious.

'Get the money out of politics make it so only 'people' get to buy politician's.

Which is the same thing as what unions, and them evil corps do.

Not much of a difference there.

To go even further if one wants to get the 'money' out of politics is ending social programs. ending the practice of buying politicians altogether.

yo end oligopoly you need to do 2 things
1. CHARGE 2 CENT ON EVERYDOLLAR TRADED ON STOCKMARKETS AS A SALES TAX
2 OUT LAW CORPORATE LOBBYIST
number 1 will take care of the deficit and number 2 will help keep politicians from becoming corporate stooges

We also need term limits in the house and senate, and childbirth.

There's a major problem with publicly funded elections. Who writes the rules? If we allow the current politicians to write those rules, they will keep campaigns costs the same as they are now while simply making the public pay for them.

There are many other problems with this. Two that come to mind are:

1. Which candidate(s) qualify for public funding? Do all 3rd party and independent candidates count, as well?

2. What are the limits on how the money is spent? As in, would the publicly funding operations be able to do everything PACs & SuperPacs do? And if not, would those groups become illegal or would campaigns still be allowed to have them on the side?

originally posted by: sensibleSenseless
Set aside time for people to put up ads???

Now you have the problem of connections required to get the MSM to give you the time of day....

Not if they are required by law to do so.