I'm curious. I check it off every year; i read somewhere once that if we all checked it one year, there'd be enough public funds that presidential campaigns would no longer be beholden to private contributions, and so their only interest would be in the taxpayers. Probably a pipe dream but still, seems like a good idea to check it and if people don't, i'd be interested in hearing their reasons why.

Never.  I believe all funding for campaigns should be private.  As much as I hate the influence of corporations and lobbyism, I would hate having my tax money go to people I disagree with even more.

I'm curious. I check it off every year; i read somewhere ... presidential campaigns would no longer be beholden to private contributions, and so their only interest would be in the taxpayers....

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D :-[ ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

oo! cynicism and learned helplessness! you hardly ever see that.

No.  Not sure how non-partisan it is.

Never.

still not really hearing how come, though. it's kinda discouraging.

I guess I don't because it I'm not really told which candidate it will support, and how they would use it. I realize it's only $3, but I would rather control who I give that money to.  I'm not a very political person, obviously, but I like donating money, food, clothing, or whatever when I see exactly who it is going to.  "The Presidential Election Campaign" is not enough info for me to go on.

For example, I would not have wanted my money to go to Sarah Palin's wardrobe makeover, how do I know where it really would have gone?  Then if you get say 30 million people that just check yes without really knowing what it goes to, are we helping pay for something really frivilous that is not needed for a Presidential campaign?

http://www.fec.gov/info/checkoff.htm#anchor1387639

This website kind of gives some answers, but I still say no, I'd rather support in some way that I know will benefit that candidate I want it to go to.  Besides, don't they get enough from celebrities?  And shouldn't they have to go out and literally pound the pavement to get this money?

i would think the idea is to have the money go equally to both candidates, and in the interest of fairness you really can't worry about some of the money going to a candidate you don't support. i mean, i wouldn't think of checking the box as trying to endorse my favored candidate, but a way of keeping excessive private money out of the process. if everyone checked the box, the money the candidates got from celebrities, PACs, and so forth might not have so much influence.

i would think the idea is to have the money go equally to both candidates, and in the interest of fairness you really can't worry about some of the money going to a candidate you don't support. i mean, i wouldn't think of checking the box as trying to endorse my favored candidate, but a way of keeping excessive private money out of the process. if everyone checked the box, the money the candidates got from celebrities, PACs, and so forth might not have so much influence.


In principle, I agree with you.

In reality, I think it works differently.

The problem is that, no matter what you do, people get favors.  You could limit all campaign funds to one lump sum for each party, but then members of each party would still use their connections to get past this artificial equality.

If I'm not mistaken, Canada uses a system similar to this, but they've had numerous ad scandals that violate their rules but still accomplish the effect of slanting things in favor of one party or another.

About the only halfway effective method of limiting influence is campaign finance reform, where individuals can only send a certain amount of money to a candidate per a given time period.  Even then, however, you can still "bundle."

It's not surprising that most reforms in fundraising don't touch the way that lobbyists donate.  They'd rather limit individuals than interest groups.

I do not contribute.  And I will never contribute.

The entire fund is basically a fraud.  It is a way for politicians to try and pass off the bill of their campaigns onto all tax payers, not just their supporters.

And it does nothing to make things fair, or to take fund raising out of the hands of private organizations.

Part of the requirements to accept Public Funding is that you are limited to raising only a set amount of money.  You are not allowed to raise beyond a preset limit if you take public funding.

It is to easy for a candidate to simply say "no", then raise as much as they want.  This leaves the other candidate at a disadvantage, since they are then set with a limit, where the other candidate has none.

And we only have to look back a few months to see this.  John McCaine took public funding, and was restricted to an $81.5 million cap.  President Obama did not take public funding, and had a war chest of an estimated $605 million.

To me, the fund is crap.  The restrictions are crap, and it only benefits somebody who refuses to accept the money.

And I am guessing that at the next election, neither candidate will take the money.  That raises the question, what will happen to it?  The money will not just sit in the "Federal Bank" after all.

I do not contribute.  And I will never contribute.

The entire fund is basically a fraud.  It is a way for politicians to try and pass off the bill of their campaigns onto all tax payers, not just their supporters.

And it does nothing to make things fair, or to take fund raising out of the hands of private organizations.except that every dollar a candidate gets from the public system is a dollar NOT privately raised, no? so to that extent it DOES take fund raising out of the hands of private corporations. and also, since it doesn't actually increase the amount of taxes we pay, how does it "pass off bills" to the taxpayer? more properly stated it reduces public services by 3 dollars. which i would think conservatives would like. small government and all that.

Part of the requirements to accept Public Funding is that you are limited to raising only a set amount of money.  You are not allowed to raise beyond a preset limit if you take public funding. so the fund places a limit on private fundraising and yet the fund does nothing to take fundraising out of private hands? that seems like a direct contradiction to me. i don't follow you.

It is to easy for a candidate to simply say "no", then raise as much as they want.  This leaves the other candidate at a disadvantage, since they are then set with a limit, where the other candidate has none.and yet the other candidate can opt out too, so the candidate would only be at a disadvantage if they were going to raise less money privately than they would be able to get out of the public fund. that's a disadvantage adhering to the candidate, not to the fund. if mccain thought he could have raised as much money as obama by opting out, he was free to do so. he couldn't so he took what he could get. seems to me the public fund actually benefited him, in that it GAVE HIM MONEY.  ;D he lost because his campaign was a trainwreck, not because he took public money.


To me, the fund is crap.  The restrictions are crap, and it only benefits somebody who refuses to accept the money.

And I am guessing that at the next election, neither candidate will take the money.  That raises the question, what will happen to it?  The money will not just sit in the "Federal Bank" after all.
but if enough people checked the box to make the public fund competitive with the private funds a candidate could raise, i really don't see where that's not a massive benefit to the country. as it is now people contribute to campaigns and then expect, and receive, political favors in exchange once their candidate gets into office. anything that shifts the burden of campaigning into public hands reduces this phenomenon of buying influence.

i tell you the truth, most of this anti-public-campaign-funding stuff just seems to be free-floating, unexamined anti-government sentiment. it's just, oh, i'm sure the government sucks and is lying and just wants to snort my $3 up their nose. and ironically, enough people don't check the box that it's actually helping create a government MORE like that, MORE corrupt, because it results in a government beholden to private interests and indifferent to the taxpayers.

I do not contribute.  And I will never contribute.

The entire fund is basically a fraud.  It is a way for politicians to try and pass off the bill of their campaigns onto all tax payers, not just their supporters.

And it does nothing to make things fair, or to take fund raising out of the hands of private organizations.

Part of the requirements to accept Public Funding is that you are limited to raising only a set amount of money.  You are not allowed to raise beyond a preset limit if you take public funding.

It is to easy for a candidate to simply say "no", then raise as much as they want.  This leaves the other candidate at a disadvantage, since they are then set with a limit, where the other candidate has none.

And we only have to look back a few months to see this.  John McCaine took public funding, and was restricted to an $81.5 million cap.  President Obama did not take public funding, and had a war chest of an estimated $605 million.

To me, the fund is crap.  The restrictions are crap, and it only benefits somebody who refuses to accept the money.

And I am guessing that at the next election, neither candidate will take the money.  That raises the question, what will happen to it?  The money will not just sit in the "Federal Bank" after all.


Ditto.

except that every dollar a candidate gets from the public system is a dollar NOT privately raised, no? so to that extent it DOES take fund raising out of the hands of private corporations. and also, since it doesn't actually increase the amount of taxes we pay, how does it "pass off bills" to the taxpayer? more properly stated it reduces public services by 3 dollars. which i would think conservatives would like. small government and all that.

Well, $3 dollars is a paltry sum compared to the total of most people's taxation.  You are reducing funding of other things, but it's by a miniscule amount.

but if enough people checked the box to make the public fund competitive with the private funds a candidate could raise, i really don't see where that's not a massive benefit to the country. as it is now people contribute to campaigns and then expect, and receive, political favors in exchange once their candidate gets into office. anything that shifts the burden of campaigning into public hands reduces this phenomenon of buying influence.

The only way this could happen would require a much larger portion that could be devoted to public funding.  $3 per person isn't anywhere near what Obama raised, for example.

Obama actually raised more money than all of the GOP combined and all of the rest of his party combined.  He basically could've started his own party.

i tell you the truth, most of this anti-public-campaign-funding stuff just seems to be free-floating, unexamined anti-government sentiment. it's just, oh, i'm sure the government sucks and is lying and just wants to snort my $3 up their nose. and ironically, enough people don't check the box that it's actually helping create a government MORE like that, MORE corrupt, because it results in a government beholden to private interests and indifferent to the taxpayers.


Well, again, for the public funding to even make a real difference, you'd have to raise the limit to like...  I don't know...  maybe $10,000 per person.

The only way this could happen would require a much larger portion that could be devoted to public funding.  or if more people checked the box. which is precisely my point.

interesting about the $3 thing, too, is it's very progressive in it's very pro-working and middle-class skewed. if everyone checked the box a lot more money from the poor and middle class would go to the candidates than they'd get from the rich, simply because there's not very many rich people but there are lots of regular schlubbs. if it was a percentage of total tax liability then the rich would get more influence based on how much money they had/were taxed, but a multi-millionaire gets the same $3 as a broke college student.

or if more people checked the box. which is precisely my point.

Even if we assume that every taxpayer in America checked the box, that would be less money than what Obama raised.

138 million people (estimate provided by the Treasury as of 2006) X $3 = $414 million

Obama's 2008 campaign fund by October = $600 million

That's not even what the final total for Obama was by election day.

interesting about the $3 thing, too, is it's very progressive in it's very pro-working and middle-class skewed. if everyone checked the box a lot more money from the poor and middle class would go to the candidates than they'd get from the rich, simply because there's not very many rich people but there are lots of regular schlubbs. if it was a percentage of total tax liability then the rich would get more influence based on how much money they had/were taxed, but a multi-millionaire gets the same $3 as a broke college student.


It is progressive, but again, not very effective at a $3 per person level.

Even if we assume that every taxpayer in America checked the box, that would be less money than what Obama raised.

138 million people (estimate provided by the Treasury as of 2006) X $3 = $414 million

Obama's 2008 campaign fund by October = $600 million

That's not even what the final total for Obama was by election day.

It is progressive, but again, not very effective at a $3 per person level.
no, it's not quite the same, but it's competitive. and i think obama-level fundraising was a one-shot deal, a combination of net-fundraising and historical disaffection with the republican party.

anyway, it's hard for me to understand this line of argument, that because the system is ineffective due to insufficient funds, it should get FEWER funds. i'm having trouble getting my head around the logic of this.

no, it's not quite the same, but it's competitive. and i think obama-level fundraising was a one-shot deal, a combination of net-fundraising and historical disaffection with the republican party.

anyway, it's hard for me to understand this line of argument, that because the system is ineffective due to insufficient funds, it should get FEWER funds. i'm having trouble getting my head around the logic of this.


Well, consider this.  If the limit was raised to maybe $100 per person, you might get more people willing to make the check.

At a $3 level, it seems kind of trivial and silly to many people.

I guess what I'm saying is...  it's easy to dismiss something so small.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm just showing yet another argument against the funding.  Mushroom was showing that it wasn't feasible, and I'm against it on principle.

Well, consider this.  If the limit was raised to maybe $100 per person, you might get more people willing to make the check.

At a $3 level, it seems kind of trivial and silly to many people.

I guess what I'm saying is...  it's easy to dismiss something so small.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm just showing yet another argument against the funding.  Mushroom was showing that it wasn't feasible, and I'm against it on principle.
i dont get the impression that many people don't check it because $3 isn't a lot of money, they don't check it because they're cynical about where the money goes. and i CERTAINLY don't think more people would check it if the figure was higher! particularly since my guess is at least as many people assume checking the box means they pay $3 more in taxes than they otherwise would, even though this isn't true. the people not checking the box for that reason would increase wildly if it went up to $100, as would people who aren't SURE whether it increases their tax liability and wouldn't want to take a chance, or people who might be concerned about what the effects would be of pumping such massive amounts of money into presidential campaigns. hell, if it went up to $100, *I'd* probably stop checking it.

heck, i started checking the box way back in the day (when it was $1) explicitly because the amount was so small! i used to think the same way as a lot of people here, government sucks, the system's broke, yaddayadda, but then one year i said, eh, it's only a buck, what harm could it do?

in my dream of dreams we'd just use public funds and largely outlaw private contributions altogether. if you wanna help the candidate of your choice, canvas, volunteer, write a blog, etc. but somewhere along the line some yokel decided that giving people money is somehow "speech," so we are where we are.

except that every dollar a candidate gets from the public system is a dollar NOT privately raised, no? so to that extent it DOES take fund raising out of the hands of private corporations. and also, since it doesn't actually increase the amount of taxes we pay, how does it "pass off bills" to the taxpayer? more properly stated it reduces public services by 3 dollars. which i would think conservatives would like. small government and all that.


Tia, you are assuming that this "fund" is like a bank account.  It is not.  No more then Social Security is a fund that money is put into, and not touched by anything else.

Every 4 years, the FEC big heads sit down and figure out how much should be allowed to qualify.  It is generally increased by around 8% every election cycle.

So over 4 years this fun can raise a billion dollars.  It will still hand out a max of only a few hundred million dollars.  And if the fund raises only $100, it will still hand out that same amount of money.  There is nothing that ties the amount given out with the amount taken in.

And to me it smacks of "unaccountability".  Simply giving money to the Government and trusting it to do what is right and proper with the money is a very foolish thing to do, and not very "conservative".

And this fund is only fair and beneficial if everybody follows it.  Which they obviously don't.  And with the flood of private interest money, it is foolish today to do so.  Why limit yourself to a paultry $85 million, when you can "rightously" claim you are not taking the "people's money", while at the same time raising almost 10 times that amount?

i dont get the impression that many people don't check it because $3 isn't a lot of money, they don't check it because they're cynical about where the money goes. and i CERTAINLY don't think more people would check it if the figure was higher! particularly since my guess is at least as many people assume checking the box means they pay $3 more in taxes than they otherwise would, even though this isn't true. the people not checking the box for that reason would increase wildly if it went up to $100, as would people who aren't SURE whether it increases their tax liability and wouldn't want to take a chance, or people who might be concerned about what the effects would be of pumping such massive amounts of money into presidential campaigns. hell, if it went up to $100, *I'd* probably stop checking it.

Well, to use your previous argument, it sounds like an even bigger issue is that we don't know where the money is going.

Maybe if the government actually was more transparent in its use of these funds, people would be less wary.

heck, i started checking the box way back in the day (when it was $1) explicitly because the amount was so small! i used to think the same way as a lot of people here, government sucks, the system's broke, yaddayadda, but then one year i said, eh, it's only a buck, what harm could it do?

in my dream of dreams we'd just use public funds and largely outlaw private contributions altogether. if you wanna help the candidate of your choice, canvas, volunteer, write a blog, etc. but somewhere along the line some yokel decided that giving people money is somehow "speech," so we are where we are.


I agree that speech and money should be considered different things.  I don't like the plutocratic leanings of our system anymore than you, but I just don't know if this is really the solution to the problem.

Tia, you are assuming that this "fund" is like a bank account.  It is not.  No more then Social Security is a fund that money is put into, and not touched by anything else.

Every 4 years, the FEC big heads sit down and figure out how much should be allowed to qualify.  It is generally increased by around 8% every election cycle.

So over 4 years this fun can raise a billion dollars.  It will still hand out a max of only a few hundred million dollars.  And if the fund raises only $100, it will still hand out that same amount of money.  There is nothing that ties the amount given out with the amount taken in.

And to me it smacks of "unaccountability".  Simply giving money to the Government and trusting it to do what is right and proper with the money is a very foolish thing to do, and not very "conservative".

And this fund is only fair and beneficial if everybody follows it.  Which they obviously don't.  And with the flood of private interest money, it is foolish today to do so.  Why limit yourself to a paultry $85 million, when you can "rightously" claim you are not taking the "people's money", while at the same time raising almost 10 times that amount?
well, reading the fec description this doesn't sound quite right. they have a fixed amount they pay every four years, true, but it's not right to say "if the fund only raises $100, they'll sttill hand out the same amount of money." according to the site

If a shortfall occurred in the Presidential Fund, the Secretary of the Treasury would allocate the remain ing funds among the eligible candidates and committees. The law requires that priority be given first to party nominating conventions, then to general election nominees and last to primary election candidates. If there were insufficient funds for the primary election candidates, the Treasury would provide only partial matching funds.

so it sounds like if they started running low they would actually start giving out less, hence that this really is a fund that they draw from every election cycle to pay to the candidates.

and they appear to be quite open about where the money goes. equal amounts go to the republican and democratic candidates adn a smaller amount can be given to third party candidates. the rest is held for next time. how does that 'smack of unaccountability'? i guess it's possible they do funny business with the money in the interim, and i guess it's possible they're flat out lying but i see no reason to just assume so. and if we're just going to assume the government is always lying, why participate at all? why even vote? might as well just throw up your hands in despair and give up.

the problem seems to be that the FEC is giving out too little money every cycle to make the fund competitive with private contributions. so really the solution would be to lobby the FEC to give out more money every four years. and again, more people checking the box would be helpful in this. it sounds like they set the level initially in the 1970s, when campaigns in general were just a lot smaller, and then adjusted for inflation without taking into account the fact that campaigns themselves have grown much faster than inflation.

yeah, i dunno, just assuming the government is always bad and saying the system is fine as it is and can't be improved strikes me as unnecessarily cynical.

Well, to use your previous argument, it sounds like an even bigger issue is that we don't know where the money is going.

again, how do we not know where the money is going? they tell us where the money is going. again i guess it's possible they're lying but is anyone alleging this? and if so what is their evidence?

yeah, i dunno, just assuming the government is always bad and saying the system is fine as it is and can't be improved strikes me as unnecessarily cynical.


Oh, I do not believe that at all.

However, I have had a lot of experience in things being exactly that way.  In general, the "Government" is apathetic, stingy, greedy, and does not give a damn about people unless it is forced to.

Mostly, I do not believe the Government is the best at doing things a lot of the time.

Some things I believe the Government does very well.  Large scale public works (dams, highways, canals, etc).  National Defense.  Utility infrastructure.  Land Management.  Emergency Services.

However, there are a lot of things I do not want the Government involved in at all other then the nessicary oversight.  Fuel comes to mind.  Banking is another.  I do not want either a "United States Bank", any more then I want a "United States Gas Company".  I do not want to buy cars from the "United States Car Company", no more then I trust the aircraft made by Airbus anywhere near as much as I do those made by Boeing.

again, how do we not know where the money is going? they tell us where the money is going. again i guess it's possible they're lying but is anyone alleging this? and if so what is their evidence?


Well, maybe I should rephrase.  If the general public's perception is that the money isn't being handled properly, then they are less likely to support it.

Maybe the government should advertise in support of this fund like they do with other things.

Oh, I do not believe that at all.

However, I have had a lot of experience in things being exactly that way.  In general, the "Government" is apathetic, stingy, greedy, and does not give a damn about people unless it is forced to.

Mostly, I do not believe the Government is the best at doing things a lot of the time.

Some things I believe the Government does very well.  Large scale public works (dams, highways, canals, etc).  National Defense.  Utility infrastructure.  Land Management.  Emergency Services.

However, there are a lot of things I do not want the Government involved in at all other then the nessicary oversight.  Fuel comes to mind.  Banking is another.  I do not want either a "United States Bank", any more then I want a "United States Gas Company".  I do not want to buy cars from the "United States Car Company", no more then I trust the aircraft made by Airbus anywhere near as much as I do those made by Boeing.
well, that's fair. i'm not typically a big pro-government guy and i feel weird even arguing that perspective here.  ;D but we have to compare the system we would have under a public campaign funding system to the system we have now, which to me seems SO deeply dysfunctional we have nowhere to go but up. private funding for campaigns seems not to be working at ALL. and i'm a little surprised you don't see it that way. look at the last election, and imagine how things might have been different if obama and mccain had had commensurate funds and the person who spent them more wisely won, rather than obama working with a tenfold or so financial advantage.

i like obama on the whole and based on my personal politics i benefited a great deal from private campaign funding last election, but i still want to see campaigns switch to public funding. i think it's better for the nation in the long run.

Even if we assume that every taxpayer in America checked the box, that would be less money than what Obama raised.

138 million people (estimate provided by the Treasury as of 2006) X $3 = $414 million

Obama's 2008 campaign fund by October = $600 million

That's not even what the final total for Obama was by election day.

It is progressive, but again, not very effective at a $3 per person level.


Yup, I was just looking for these figures when I read your post -

2008 filed taxes - 135,660,228 x 3 = $406,980,684.

This would have just about paid for the 2000 presidential campaign spending.

However, in 1999, 125,389,700 filed their taxes. x 3 = $376,169,100. Uh Oh! Now it's a real tight squeeze to pay for an election.

The population rate isn't growing all that fast, the amount spent on elections is and unless you want to mandate that Presidential Campaign Commercials are subject to a subsidized advertising rate they will continue to get more expensive. Of course, if you want to ensure that candidates aren't beholden to doners then the public will have to pay for the advertisements subsidy, which leads us back to the problem.

It's $3 now?it used to be $1!!!!

There is really no way the $3 would be a fiar system, and remove corruption from the election finance system unless one thing happened...

All other donations were outlawed, and all campaign finance came ONLY through such a fund.

Of course, then you would be stifiling both the freedom of individuals to donate to the candidate/party of their choice.  You would also be shutting out all other candidates of smaller parties.

And that is a big step towards the election system of a sountry like Venezuela or North Korea.

"Hey look, 100% of the people voted, and 100% voted for our guy!  Go us!"

There is really no way the $3 would be a fiar system, and remove corruption from the election finance system unless one thing happened...

All other donations were outlawed, and all campaign finance came ONLY through such a fund.

Of course, then you would be stifiling both the freedom of individuals to donate to the candidate/party of their choice.  You would also be shutting out all other candidates of smaller parties.

And that is a big step towards the election system of a sountry like Venezuela or North Korea.

"Hey look, 100% of the people voted, and 100% voted for our guy!  Go us!"
yeah, i dunno, this whole thread has been about complaining about the $3 system, but i'm not seeing a single complaint that actually stands the test of argument. people seem to just be going, the government sucks! therefore i'm not going to check the box! which makes the government suck more!" it just seems like free-floating cynicism.

and yes, yes, venezuela and all that. socialism card, blah blah. i just think if all sides had the same amount of funding, it would go a long way toward bringing out the candidate who was more knowledgable and competent. as it is, all you have to do is be more attractive to the groups who have more money, and they will give you more money. and then you win. and then you do the bidding of people who have a lot of money. that's the system we have now. and we can see how great it is.

yeah, i dunno, this whole thread has been about complaining about the $3 system, but i'm not seeing a single complaint that actually stands the test of argument. people seem to just be going, the government sucks! therefore i'm not going to check the box! which makes the government suck more!" it just seems like free-floating cynicism.


It is not that at all, at least not for me.

I believe that there should be no "Government Subsidy" for somebody because they run for President.  Nor should there be a Fund sponsored through the Government.

The only way for this to fairly work is to either go 100% Government Sponsored, which I do not see ever happening.

Personally, I think this was the last election I will see in my lifetime where either of the major parties accept the fund.  After 2008, neither party will be willing to accept the restrictions just for less then $100 million.  President Obama proved that, by raising more then 6 times that amount.

I believe that there should be no "Government Subsidy" for somebody because they run for President.  Nor should there be a Fund sponsored through the Government.
well, in saying that you have to realize that when you poo-poo public financing for elections, you're implicitly acknowledging that the pay-to-play system that we have now is okay with you, along with all its downsides. because that's what that implies. you can't just play the socialism card and say things are okay the way they are and job well done. you have to justify the status quo, make an actual argument why you think wealthy interests getting a disproportionate share of political influence somehow shakes out to a fair system for the rest of us.

so let's hear it man. let's hear your justification for why the pay-to-play system is the way to go. i'm curious what your argument for the status quo is, and i'm all ears.

yeah, i dunno, this whole thread has been about complaining about the $3 system, but i'm not seeing a single complaint that actually stands the test of argument. people seem to just be going, the government sucks! therefore i'm not going to check the box! which makes the government suck more!" it just seems like free-floating cynicism.

and yes, yes, venezuela and all that. socialism card, blah blah. i just think if all sides had the same amount of funding, it would go a long way toward bringing out the candidate who was more knowledgable and competent. as it is, all you have to do is be more attractive to the groups who have more money, and they will give you more money. and then you win. and then you do the bidding of people who have a lot of money. that's the system we have now. and we can see how great it is.


But think about this; Your candidate, Mr. Obama, had to spend more money to win. He had a much lower profile entering the election and would never have been able to beat Clinton in the primaries without outspending her. Create a level playing field and you'll essentially end up with a system that allows only those who have been in the public eye to win. You seem to have a great amount of faith in the American people. News flash - A lot of them are very, very stupid people. Remember in 2000, how many of them placed "He's a guy I could have a beer with." over "He's a guy who seems to have a well thought out and attainable agenda.". Create a level playing field and all you're going to do is create a race to the middle in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Create a level playing field and all you're going to do is create a race to the middle in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
we don't have that now? with the only stipulation being, it helps to be rich? you seem to be saying obama won because the current system isn't merit based, and it's plain you don't dig obama -- even though i believe i heard you voted for him, and i'm actually in the same situation, having voted for him and now feeling a bit disillusioned -- but you seem to be going on to say that the system not being merit-based is somehow a good thing.

i understand and agree that too many people are stupid. occurs to me that the solution to that would be to remedy the educational system, not to fail to remedy the electoral system.

we don't have that now? with the only stipulation being, it helps to be rich? you seem to be saying obama won because the current system isn't merit based, and it's plain you don't dig obama -- even though i believe i heard you voted for him, and i'm actually in the same situation, having voted for him and now feeling a bit disillusioned -- but you seem to be going on to say that the system not being merit-based is somehow a good thing.

i understand and agree that too many people are stupid. occurs to me that the solution to that would be to remedy the educational system, not to fail to remedy the electoral system.


I voted against McCain. Well, actually, I voted against a cancer patient, with a highly unsuitable running partner, but that's besides the point at this time.

My point is this: Currently, whilst being ridiculously wealthy can be beneficial (although we only have to look at Forbes failed campaign to show that isn't always the case), ensuring that candidates can spend freely allows candidates with lower profiles to ensure a higher profile for themselves. My example was this - John McCain and Hilary Clinton were (and are) exceptionally high profile individuals, Barack Obama was a fairly unknown Senator (except in my part of the country, but to be fair, I live about 3 miles from Illinois), the key reason for his success in the primaries and in the general election was a) because he was able to spend a huge amount of money, far more than his rivals and thus create a media sensation for himself and b) because he was eventually drawn against a man who'd embraced previously failed policies and was hampered from the start.

Here's the thing.

If Senator A has been on the national scene in D.C for 25 years and is well know and Governor B has been stuck in asshole Arkansas for the past 6 years and has barely gained any attention on the national scene, if both candidates are hamstrung to a certain spending limit, Senator A has a distinct advantage over Governor B because Senator A already has the name recognition that is so vitally important in any campaign.

well, in saying that you have to realize that when you poo-poo public financing for elections, you're implicitly acknowledging that the pay-to-play system that we have now is okay with you, along with all its downsides. because that's what that implies.


No, that is not what I am saying.  Let me make it simple and more plain then.

Either make it public financing only, or do away with the public financing.  Make it so nobody can accept donated money, other then that that comes from the $3 per person per year.  Then I would agree with the concept.

But I see the odds of that happening as exactly 0%.  Therefore, get rid of the public financing.  It is just a ponzi scheme to take more of your money and give it to politicians.

In fact, I am suprised you are not pushing for the funds to be used for something else.  Imagine what all that money could do if aplied to the welfare system.  That is a better use then going to political campaigns.

Either make it public financing only, or do away with the public financing.  Make it so nobody can accept donated money, other then that that comes from the $3 per person per year.  Then I would agree with the concept.
i'm all for the first part. but if we really just hand over the elections solely to private financing, we'll officially be an elite oligopoly. do you know what the statistics are NOW in terms of what proportion of elections are won by the candidate who raises the most money? with the complete elimination of public financing, virtually every election in the country will be buyable by whoever the biggest contributor happens to be.

and anyway, i'm still waiting for any evidence that the $3 fund isn't accountable. it would appear that we know where the money goes. what is your evidence that we don't? stay focused and answer my question. you're changing the subject.

also, how is this a "ponzi" scheme? isn't a ponzi scheme when you take the money of later investors and give it to earlier investors to create the illusion of return on investment? which people putting in $3 are getting the money of other people who are putting in $3? i check the $3 and i expect nothing back in return. so how exactly is this a "ponzi" scheme? it's a donation. how could a donation possibly be a ponzi scheme when the people donating aren't expecting any returns?

and see, that's my problem. there are all these cynical accusations of corruption in this system but i've not seen one credible accusation yet. it's fashionable these days to call everything a "ponzi" scheme so presto-cadabra: a government-sponsored donation system becomes a "ponzi" scheme. with no evidence.