HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Publicly Funded Elections... » Reply #5

Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:25 PM

5. I am too, but it's not what is meant by public funding

I have always been in favor of public funding--the government provides funding, and the candidates have to agree to spending limits (which seem pretty generous, if you ask me). We have far too much money spent on campaigns, to cover far too long periods of time. Television ad revenues, Internet ads, travel, gizmos, rallies (very expensive, with arena rentals and security and equipment costs) over a period of two years.

Since we all want to be more like European countries (cough), why don't we make our elections more like theirs, which last only a few months, start to finish? If no one could spend more than $48.01 million for the primary election and $96.14 million for the general election (the current 2016 legal spending limits for candidates who accept public funding), wouldn't that be ok? (It wouldn't get rid of private spending, however--unless we can overturn Citizens United, which must be done.)

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Please login to view edit histories.