My apologies, but I feel Self Funding of a campaign is better....

[Under The Radar]

.....than being indebted to wealthy contributors, large corporations and special interest groups who fund campaigns secretly through Super-PACs, all of which want a specific return on their investment that is likely not beneficial to the general population.

[Garrett78]

1. What Bloomberg has a long history of doing is bribing people so they'll be beholden to him.

[left-of-center2012]

5. Source?

Link?

[Garrett78]

9. It's pretty well-known going back a long time. As is the racism and misogyny.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/02/a-republican-plutocrat-tries-to-buy-the-democratic-nomination

[Devil Child]

6. +1! N/T

[Xipe Totec]

2. False framing

It would be better if the media, as a public service, which is the reason they are licensed to operate, would carry political adds free of charge for all candidates.

[Sloumeau]

3. Self funding a campaign is better than facing a...

Republican opponent with insufficient funds.

[CatMor]

4. That would mean only the very wealthy could run.

[Under The Radar]

11. welcome to the NFL

[Squinch]

13. Welcome to Citizens United world. We may not like it, but it's where we live.

And we have to work within it to win enough to change it.

[frazzled]

19. Candidates have always been able to use their own money

We’re not talking about wealthy people here. When Bloomberg spends 300 million on ads, that is a mere one half of one percent of his 61 billion dollar fortune (.0049). If another candidate raises 30 million, or contributes 30 million of their personal funds, and spends a half of one percent on ads, they’d only get to spend $147,000. I doubt that could buy more than single ad or two. Regular candidates have to expend a far greater amount of their war chest, and still can’t compete. And they have even less to spend on field offices and staff.

[Squinch]

20. Yes, I know. That is why Citizens United is so destructive.

But it is what we have to contend with. And the only way to get rid of it is to take back all the branches of the government. The only way to do THAT is to have people of huge wealth on your side.

Republicans have that. Trump has an enormous war chest. Bloomberg has enough money to fight that. Few others do.

[frazzled]

21. I don't think that is the answer.

That will destroy the democratic process just as much as Citizens United.

[ibegurpard]

7. That was one of the arguments people made for supporting Trump

just so you know

[Under The Radar]

10. True but Trump said that he was but didn't.

He was reimbursed by the RNC for his primary expenditures then fully funded by the RNC and 501C3’s in the general.

[relayerbob]

8. At least he's putting *his* money where his mouth is

[PatSeg]

12. Trump ran on that premise

[Squinch]

14. He ran on that PROMISE but then, of course he broke it and

demanded to be reimbursed.

[squirecam]

15. But lied about it.

Bloomberg isn’t lying about it.

Steyer got donors because he had to because of the debate requirements.

[PatSeg]

22. Of course

We know Trump lied. He never spends a dime of his own money if he doesn't have to. However, it was one of his main selling points in 2016.

[kentuck]

16. So if you're wealthy and contribute to your own campaign, you are not a "wealthy contributor"?

Does not compute.

[patricia92243]

17. It's not buying the election - unless your name is Bloomberg.

[Nanjeanne]

18. Maybe if we did things like other countries we wouldn't be in this

Predicament.

The longest Canadian campaign was 11 weeks.
UK limits the among each party can spend in an election year
Germany they release one 90 second tv ad
France’s Pres election cycle is about 2 weeks
The longest campaign in Australian history lasted 94 days.

[Under The Radar]

24. Agreed. But complicated rules are created....

By those who have no intention of playing by the rules.

[highplainsdem]

23. So you'd disapprove of Sanders getting help from Our Revolution?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287447158