LearnHub

Join LearnHub

Community

Politics

Political campaigns should be publicly funded (Discussion)

albrecht said – Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:14:14 -0000 ( Edit Link )

I think there is far too much private money influencing politics in many parts of the world. It’s tough for a politician to say no to the interests of a company or lobbyist group after they’ve given several hundred thousand dollars to get them into office.

In the upcoming U.S. election (which hasn’t even begun for real yet!) Barack Obama has already raised $350 million dollars and spent almost $270 million in just the primaries. John McCain has raised about $150 million and spent over $100 million so far. These numbers are ridiculous!

If every political party received public funding (often tied to votes in the last election) and had hard limits on what else they could receive from citizens and corporations I think we would have a more democratic world as a result. (The hard part is trying to implement this system and change a political culture…)

Some people say it’s undemocratic itself to limit how much an individual can contribute or to try to regulate the democratic election process. What do you think?

Actions

Respond

Author: albrecht; Authority 526

Vote

Current Rating: 0; Rate Up; Rate Down

No Votes

6 Responses

oLahav said – Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:23:23 -0000 ( Flag Edit Mark / Unmark Best Link )

I don’t think campaigns should be publicly funded. I personally have my opinions and don’t need silly ads and debates (and those annoying polluting signs they always put up) to make a decision I believe in. I have no desire whatsoever to see my tax money funding that ridiculous purpose instead of some good environmental cleanups or education stuff. A lot of people would feel the same way and oppose public funding, especially young people who don’t care about politics one bit, but do care a lot about their wallets.

I agree that the numbers are insane though, and it’s a total waste of money, and yeah, it may cause some undemocratic bias problems. But I believe that can better be solved by limiting the contributions and possibly even who can fund a campaign (interest groups shouldn’t, for example). I don’t believe it’s undemocratic at all, since a corporation with certain interests or one really rich guy don’t represent the general public in any way.
Actions
Reply To This
Author

oLahav

Authority 711

Vote

Current Rating

0

Rate Up

Rate Down

No Votes
Post Comments
Add Comment

Your Reply
lechuck said – Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:36:37 -0000 ( Flag Edit Mark / Unmark Best Link )

Why do politicians need so much money to campaign anyhow? Especially with media being so global these days. They don’t need to repeat the same speech 50 times when it’s broadcast on TV across North America anyhow. No wonder the US is on the brink of a depression, they waste money. It’s even worse if they use public money to do this fashion show they call a campaign.
Actions
1 Reply
Author

lechuck

Authority 464

Vote

Current Rating

0

Rate Up

Rate Down

No Votes
Post Comments
1. oLahav said – Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:12:03 -0000 ( Flag Edit Link )
  
  That’s so right… why tour the country and have a speech in every state when you can do it all at once using a good webcast? It’ll also help them reach more audiences.
  
  It’s so ironic that the Americans (and many other countries too sadly) waste incredible amounts of money on such trivial things, and later complain that they’re in a bad economical situation. Donate your campaign money to African kids, then I’d vote for you, how about that?
  
  Rating
  
  0
  
  Rate Up
  
  Author
  
  oLahav
  
  Authority 711
Add Comment

Your Reply
acrosstheuniverse said – Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:24:47 -0000 ( Flag Edit Mark / Unmark Best Link )

albrecht, I definitely agree that there should be a set limit on the amount of money spent on campaigns. The fact that you can have a ten-fold stronger campaign because of “raised” money is absurd. Having a set limit on the amount of resources to spend and not taking private donations would make the system more democratic, as well it would teach them from the outset to be resourceful. Isn’t that what getting into a position of parliamentary decision is all about?

oLahav and Lechuck, I also agree that there are easier ways to get the message out to the people. I cringe when I see the television stints of each other knocking one another down in their commercials. Why is that needed? Political campaigns should be about what can be done, not what you can do better than the next guy, or that you have more money to fling around on fancy lawn signs, political events and marketing ploys.
Actions
Reply To This
Author

acrosstheuniverse

Authority 623

Vote

Current Rating

0

Rate Up

Rate Down

No Votes
Post Comments
Add Comment

Your Reply
oLahav said – Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:31:08 -0000 ( Flag Edit Mark / Unmark Best Link )

Anybody remember the (Canadian?) politician who was accused of eating kittens? I seem to remember some funny story about it, but I can’t recall all the details.
Actions
1 Reply
Author

oLahav

Authority 711

Vote

Current Rating

0

Rate Up

Rate Down

No Votes
Post Comments
1. lucyinthesky said – Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:37:36 -0000 ( Flag Edit Link )
  
  The increasingly bitter tone of the Ontario campaign took a surreal turn Friday when a press release from the Tory election machine labelled Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty a pet-eating alien.
  
  “Dalton McGuinty,” the statement said. “He’s an evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet.”
  
  You can see the Globe and Mail article here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030912.wonta0912/BNStory/National/
  
  Just for the record, he probably doesn’t really eat kittens…:)
  
  Rating
  
  0
  
  Rate Up
  
  Author
  
  lucyinthesky
  
  Authority 727
Add Comment

Your Reply
lmbarnett said – Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:32:37 -0000 ( Flag Edit Mark / Unmark Best Link )

Although I agree that lobbyists in politics do pose a problem, one way to solve the problem is to have millions of small donors, as Obama has. He has not taken any money from lobbyists, but rather 90% of his donations have come from donations of less than $200. If there is transparency in terms of strong ethics laws, we can keep elected officials accountable and make decisions based on which groups support the candidates. Also, while Obama and McCain have raised a tremendous amount of money, campaigns are expensive these days because of television. It would be great if all voters were internet activists the way many of us are, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of people still get their news from TV, not the internet.
Actions
Reply To This
Author

lmbarnett

Authority 203

Vote

Current Rating

0

Rate Up

Rate Down

No Votes
Post Comments
Add Comment

Your Reply
lucyinthesky said – Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:32:28 -0000 ( Flag Edit Mark / Unmark Best Link )

If more money was given for the public funding for their campaigns or political parties, then I think there might be an increased chance of corruption between the funding and the government. It would also take away money from the government where it could be put to better use, such as education or health care.
Actions
Reply To This
Author

lucyinthesky

Authority 727

Vote

Current Rating

0

Rate Up

Rate Down

No Votes
Post Comments
Add Comment

Your Reply