Question On Political Campaign Reform

In what way would you change the current way
Candidates raise money for their campaigns?

Also Please comment on the fact that these people are supposed
to be in Washington doing the jobs they were already elected to!

In what way would you change the current way candidates raise money for their campaigns?

Thank you for taking the time to raise these questions.

I support a full blanket reform for electoral candidates and how they raise money. I believe that the Government should allow for the hosting of a single website for all candidates which they themselves are expected to keep up to date with information on their campaign and beliefs. National television debates for the Presidential campaigners to be held once a month and a set amount of free advertising given by television companies (that nobody pays for). Along with a single leaflet for each campaigner (no larger than A4) to be given to every house in the country, as we move further into the digital age (with free wi-fi access across cities) less and less leaflets should be given out. Instead a single one with your local Government officials websites and National websites should be given 3months prior to the election and allowing you the time to research them.

No election should cost millions of pounds. There is no reason that big business cannot allow the Government to have a blanket free websites (templates) for each candidate. Free airtime on radio and television and so on and so fourth instead of forcing them to pay and limiting the democratic choices of possible presidential candidates however the candidates should be expected to get a set amount of signatures (through online petitions eventually) but through both postal and online in the short term before they are eligible for State support. The amount of signatures needed should be dependent on the level of Government they are running for.

Simple. Campaigns would be organized in such away as that only monies collected from donations of individuals would suffice. I'd take the corporate hand completely out of the structure. No more lobbying. No more special interests groups forcing my hand to do things just because they were a campaign contributor.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Simple. Campaigns would be organized in such away as that only monies collected from donations of individuals would suffice. I'd take the corporate hand completely out of the structure. No more lobbying. No more special interests groups forcing my hand to do things just because they were a campaign contributor.

How would that work?

I own company X, I have Y millions and donate Z of this to Candidate A. The problem still exists instead of the company giving money though it'd be the individual who owns the company.

All campaigns should have a spending limit, EVERY candidate approved on a ballot is entitled to the exact same amount. A Federal Agent will watch the money carefully. You may add NO personal money, no donated money, you may not collect money in any way except the tax dollars given to you. There should be a limited amount of time and money to be spent on TV adds, there should be fines for slander. All candidates approved on the ballot should be at the debates.

The way the system is set up now only the rich candidates may dream to run. I believe that candidates should only use a set amount of money to run their campaign.

This fund should be equily distributed amongst all candidates seeking election. All candidates should have equil opertunity to present their platform and by the time the primaries come. The candidates that are the most qualified for the postition should be the ones allowed forward.

Originally posted by Ex
In what way would you change the current way
Candidates raise money for their campaigns?

Also Please comment on the fact that these people are supposed
to be in Washington doing the jobs they were already elected to!

Love the question.

You know how race car drivers wear their gear and its covered in sponsors logos? Well the same ought to apply to political campaigns. Every candidate should present his campaign against a backdrop detailing his/her sponsors, with the largest contributors having the largest lettering. That way people know exactly who and what they are voting for and exactly who is backing them.

Its simple stuff really

I support setting a spending limit of $5,000-10,000.

I support giving all candidates equal free time to state there positions
and such.


Politicians are elected by us, they are supposed to do the job we elected
them for, they work for us.

This has however become lost on them.

We need drastic change in all parts of government.

[edit on 2/27/2007 by iori_komei]

I would like to thank everyone that responded to my thread

I find this forum and election both inspiring and informative.
I am sure I will have many other questions before election day
and hope you will bare with my ever inquisitive nature
as I believe the only way to find out what some one is thinking..
is to ask!

Sincerely, EX

Originally posted by Ex
In what way would you change the current way
Candidates raise money for their campaigns?

The main thing I'd change would be that they could no longer recieve "political contributions" from some private party for any reason whatsoever. Lobbying would be outlawed, as it promotes corruption, and the People would be able to enforce that by immediate impeachment should any candidate be caught accepting any.

Also Please comment on the fact that these people are supposed
to be in Washington doing the jobs they were already elected to!

The thing about my system is though, that it wouldn't matter if they were getting any kinds of contributions, since they wouldn't have anymore of a say than anyone else has. Everyone would be able to decide what was best for their country. I guess you could say that a direct democracy would absolve the need for any party funding.

TheBorg

I think in order to have real, effective change, the laws much be small in number and quite simple.

A market-rate cap should be set on all fundraising, high enough to allow adequate national television coverage, but low enough to allow fair competition. The power of money in an election should not be determined by how much of it one can throw about, but rather how creatively it can be used.

ALL funding, if accepted, must be a matter of public record, and require the acceptance signature of the candidate. This will prevent sabotuers from slipping something like a NAMBLA check into the pot of an unsuspecting candidate, as well as remove plausible deniability for accepting such a check.

ALL expenses billed to their funding must be made public as well. Thus, if a candidate decides to throw away a million dollars of their party's campaign contributions on hookers and blow, the voters have a right to know about it.


I feel this is the only fair and effective way to limit campaign funding in any reasonable fashion. Let's face it, corporate interests, like it or not, have just as much claim to representation as private interests and public interests. If someone wants to take 50 million dollars from McDonald's, with the understanding that they're going to be the McCandidate, and represent McDonald's interests to the best of their ability, they should have that right. HOWEVER, it should be easily available to the public knowledge that this is the case.

Aside from that, it is up to the voter to make a responsible decision.

[edit on 2/28/2007 by thelibra]

Candidates should have a funding limit. Candidates should not be able to spend more then "D6", have they spent over that set amount, they shall be eliminated for abuse of their fundings.

However they can make adds and google adds and let people think for themselves. It shouldn't be a marketing campaign this should not be run like people want in on spending money however instead-- more and more people should be appreciative of what they have-- and spend that wisely. Considerable amount of people who are in the whitehouse should have gotten there without campaign money and other people have failed because another person has gotten too much money for their campaign.

It's simple. If they are rich, they should use the money they got. When a candidate running for office is not rich they should market themselves and spend a limited budget then focus the rest of their money on an exploration group so they can explore ideas within their campaign and then market those ideas with any and additional money that they have.