Publically Financed Campaigns...

Keep the goal in mind...

what I want is a system that keeps voter A who votes for candidate C and gives $0 the same influence over C's actions as voter B who gives C a yacht-load of cash.

In other words, the only advantage that wealth should provide is the ability to buy more stuff. Buy what you want. But your money doesn't give you the ability to control my life.

Assuming that you agree with the principle stated above, how do we get there?

My idea:

1) The only entities allowed to give money to candidates are entities that can vote. IE, actual humans who are registered to vote.

2) The only candidates anyone can give money to are candidates who, if they win, will directly represent you. I shouldn't be able to give money to your Congressman, and you shouldn't be able to give money to mine.

3) Donations should be limited to an amount that most, if not all, voters should be able to pay. I get one vote, Warren Buffet gets one vote. Our political influence should reflect this.

4) Candidates should be allowed to spend as much of their own money as they want. Self-financed campaigns tend not to work. Ask Mitt Romney. Or Ross Perot. On the flip side, if someone's trying to buy an election with their own dollars, at least everyone knows who the buyer is.

5) Any donation, gift, or other benefit to a candidate beyond the rules is a bribe. Period. No intermediate categories. Everyone goes to jail.

--Shannon
 
Back
Top