campaign finance

txmxer
Profile picture for user txmxer
Posts
9770
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Weatherford, TX, USA
txmxer
Edited Date/Time 1/11/2012 11:49pm
Just occurred to me that limiting campaign finance may be a really dumb idea. Maybe we should have unlimited campaign finance, but then the politician has to have a sign that lists his/her top ten contributors posted on their foreheads.

It would be like sponsorships today. If we like the person, we patronize their sponsors. If not, we boycott.

Give us a little more transparency.
|
huck
Profile picture for user huck
Posts
17049
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Mountain Home, AR, USA
huck 6/23/2009 9:23am
6/23/2009 9:23am
Should Obama have to thank his top ten contributors each time he is on the podium?

Maybe we should get LB over here for a ruling?
txmxer
Profile picture for user txmxer
Posts
9770
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Weatherford, TX, USA
txmxer 6/23/2009 9:56am
6/23/2009 9:56am
damn straight. Problem is, he collects small money from everyone. It conceals how the big dollars get into their pockets.

We need to lift the veil and let corporations and such drop the bomb. Sponsorship logos are transparency.
txmxer
Profile picture for user txmxer
Posts
9770
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Weatherford, TX, USA
txmxer 6/23/2009 10:34am
6/23/2009 10:34am
Jim, if that would work, then we wouldn't need all the rules in the first place.

Problem is we are human and human nature involves greed for power and money. Rules are made to be broken and more rules means more opportunities to break rules and more people seeking to break rules.

I'll stick with sponsorship logos.
jmar
Profile picture for user jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
jmar 6/23/2009 11:25am
6/23/2009 11:25am
txmxer wrote:
Jim, if that would work, then we wouldn't need all the rules in the first place. Problem is we are human and human nature involves greed...
Jim, if that would work, then we wouldn't need all the rules in the first place.

Problem is we are human and human nature involves greed for power and money. Rules are made to be broken and more rules means more opportunities to break rules and more people seeking to break rules.

I'll stick with sponsorship logos.
We need more choices and this would level the playing field and open up opportunities for candidates outside of the existing two party system.

There will never be true change with our existing two party system.

The Shop

See All »
huck
Profile picture for user huck
Posts
17049
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Mountain Home, AR, USA
huck 6/23/2009 11:27am
6/23/2009 11:27am
It's too expensive of a process for anybody "normal" to run...

National TV adds should be illegal for candidates.
txmxer
Profile picture for user txmxer
Posts
9770
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Weatherford, TX, USA
txmxer 6/23/2009 11:49am
6/23/2009 11:49am
more choices would be good.

I'm also for term limits. I know some don't agree with this, but I think it's reasonable:

1) Senate: One 6 year term
2) House: Change to 4 yrs, opposite the president and limit to 2 terms

That's 14 years as a representative. That's enough time.

Also, limit benefits. They don't need full retirement if they aren't there for ever.
Titan
Profile picture for user Titan
Posts
1743
Joined
8/30/2007
Location
Lehi, UT, USA
Titan 6/23/2009 12:03pm
6/23/2009 12:03pm
X10000000

I've been saying that for a long time...

Tax funded campaigns for all nationally recognized parties...all parties get the exact same amount of money. No donations, no freebies....

The days of politicians getting elected and owing "favors" to contributors needs to become a thing of the past.
No Spin Zone 6/23/2009 12:06pm
6/23/2009 12:06pm
I don't know why we don't use tax incentives and allocate a precise number to each candidate who meets the qualifications. Then, all of them get the same advertisement on ABC, and ABC can get a tax credit for running the ads. Have it controlled by the government in the interest of fairness to the people.
Titan
Profile picture for user Titan
Posts
1743
Joined
8/30/2007
Location
Lehi, UT, USA
Titan 6/23/2009 12:08pm
6/23/2009 12:08pm
huck wrote:
It's too expensive of a process for anybody "normal" to run...

National TV adds should be illegal for candidates.
That is why all nationally recognized parties would get the exact same amount of tax payer funded money...

The smaller companies would have the exact same budget as the two big parties...thus leveling the playing field...

Post a reply to: campaign finance