Do you support the "voting with dollars" campaign finance reform plan?

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

From wiki:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It doesn't really address the major complaint with public financing, that being that taxpayers are sending their money off to support the campaigns of candidates that they may not support. This just seems like a standard public financing proposal adjusted to benefit the candidates that are already more likely to win.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Uh what? It would pay for itself on account of reduced pork spending/corruption.

Furthermore people can fund any candidate they want-so unless you can't find anyone you like, it shouldn't be an issue.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

How about letting people trade the $50 voucher in for cash rather than forcing them to contribute their tax money right back to the politicians?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     How much money is wasted on pork anyway?

     Who the people that receive the vouchers use them on is irrelevant to anything. The issue is with the people whose dollars are going to fund these vouchers. Why should they have to fund the campaigns of candidates that they dislike?

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

    How much money is wasted on pork anyway?

     Who the people that receive the vouchers use them on is irrelevant to anything. The issue is with the people whose dollars are going to fund these vouchers. Why should they have to fund the campaigns of candidates that they dislike?

People already have to fund wars they dislike, executions they disagree with, and CIA assasinations which the government won't even admit occur.

People having to fund a system that reduces corruption and makes the system more democratic strikes me as considerably less tragic.

As an added sweetener for a Libertarian such as yourself, this system would benefit thrid parties.

[Torie]

This one is really impossible to enforce.  If someone wants a politician to know that he has been greased, the Pony Express will get through with the message. Let everyone spend what they want from where they want, but if the spending gets over a certain amount, then cut checks to the opponent by more than the excess spending. That will slow down the money chase in a hurry.

The proposal also violates the First Amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     How much money is wasted on pork anyway?

     Who the people that receive the vouchers use them on is irrelevant to anything. The issue is with the people whose dollars are going to fund these vouchers. Why should they have to fund the campaigns of candidates that they dislike?

People already have to fund wars they dislike, executions they disagree with, and CIA assasinations which the government won't even admit occur.

People having to fund a system that reduces corruption and makes the system more democratic strikes me as considerably less tragic.

As an added sweetener for a Libertarian such as yourself, this system would benefit thrid parties.

     So don't wage unnecessary wars, don't execute anybody, & don't assassinate anybody. The fact that people are being forced into sending their money to support things that they oppose suggests to me that we should move to rectify that problem, not add to it.

     As I said, this just seems like a standard-average public financing proposal, only institutionally built to favor frontrunners. If you really want to fight corruption & help third-parties, I think the best system would be something along the lines of an even split between all candidates in a race from a pot whose size is determined based on the cost of running an effective campaign for that office in that area, along with a cap on total spending by a single candidate.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

This one is really impossible to enforce.  If someone wants a politician to know that he has been greased, the Pony Express will get through with the message. Let everyone spend what they want from where they want, but if the spending gets over a certain amount, then cut checks to the opponent by more than the excess spending. That will slow down the money chase in a hurry.

The proposal also violates the First Amendment.

GODDAMN IT, did you read the damn thing? Their is nothing restricting them from claiming they sent any amount of money to a paticular politician. It's just that it would be impossible to prove it because the money is anounomysly- in other words, it would be possible to claim to 50 different politicians that you were donating $1 million dollars, and donate no money to any of them-and the politicians wouldn't realize!!!!

Given that the politicians are completely aware that any proclamations of donation could be complete lies, they will not be inclined to trust such claims thus undermining attempts to corrupt the system.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This one is really impossible to enforce.  If someone wants a politician to know that he has been greased, the Pony Express will get through with the message. Let everyone spend what they want from where they want, but if the spending gets over a certain amount, then cut checks to the opponent by more than the excess spending. That will slow down the money chase in a hurry.

The proposal also violates the First Amendment.

GODDAMN IT, did you read the damn thing? Their is nothing restricting them from claiming they sent any amount of money to a particular politician. It's just that it would be impossible to prove it because the money is anonymously- in other words, it would be possible to claim to 50 different politicians that you were donating $1 million dollars, and donate no money to any of them-and the politicians wouldn't realize!!!!

Given that the politicians are completely aware that any proclamations of donation could be complete lies, they will not be inclined to trust such claims thus undermining attempts to corrupt the system.

I don't see how such a system could constitutionally stop third-party expenditures,  If a group really wants to influence an election and let it be known who is doing it, I can't see how it could be stopped short of amending the constitution.

[Derek]

What this country needs is to ban all soft money in federal campaigns. You may end up with more 527 ads but voters are smart enough to know better. I don't support the above idea.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

This one is really impossible to enforce.  If someone wants a politician to know that he has been greased, the Pony Express will get through with the message. Let everyone spend what they want from where they want, but if the spending gets over a certain amount, then cut checks to the opponent by more than the excess spending. That will slow down the money chase in a hurry.

The proposal also violates the First Amendment.

GODDAMN IT, did you read the damn thing? Their is nothing restricting them from claiming they sent any amount of money to a particular politician. It's just that it would be impossible to prove it because the money is anonymously- in other words, it would be possible to claim to 50 different politicians that you were donating $1 million dollars, and donate no money to any of them-and the politicians wouldn't realize!!!!

Given that the politicians are completely aware that any proclamations of donation could be complete lies, they will not be inclined to trust such claims thus undermining attempts to corrupt the system.

I don't see how such a system could constitutionally stop third-party expenditures,  If a group really wants to influence an election and let it be known who is doing it, I can't see how it could be stopped short of amending the constitution.

I'll say it one last time. They would be entirely able to claim they were donating to a paticular candidate so as to influence an election. They just wouldn't bd able to prove it, because donations are done anonymously- someone could quite easily tell a politician they were donating a large sum of money in an attempt to influence them, and then donate no money whatsoever. The politicians in question know this, and if they have no way of proving that a particular special interest group has donated them money they will not be paticularly influenced by such claims.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And I'll say it one last time.  There is no constitutional way of preventing people for spending money in support of candidates in a way that lets them know they did so.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

And I'll say it one last time.  There is no constitutional way of preventing people for spending money in support of candidates in a way that lets them know they did so.

According to the Roberts court. Nuff said.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And I'll say it one last time.  There is no constitutional way of preventing people for spending money in support of candidates in a way that lets them know they did so.

According to the Roberts court. Nuff said.

And according to the Burger Court in the landmark 1976  Buckley v. Valeo case.

[Derek]

I also question the constitutionality of campaign finance reform.