I was just reflecting that possibly why to date all the proposed solutions for campaign finance reform seem to have unintended consequences attached to them is that they focus on the supply side and are advocating more regulations on exactly who can contribute how much to each political campaign. But what if a simpler way was just to regulate the demand side? - where the maximum each political campaign could spend was capped at a relatively lower amount than the record breaking amounts we see gets thrown around these days. If a Congressional race campaign was limited to say $400k spending at maximum - and it didnt matter whether that came from a single person or 400000 constituents giving a dollar each - then it would be way easier for grass roots campaigns to compete equally with the corporate and union funded candidates - and it would mean that money that is essentially wasted on something that is non-productive of any tangibles would instead be focused back to productive investments and the general economy. Besides maximum caps - I would propose eliminating public funding for political partys primary elections - and using some of the savings from that in order to fund district, State and national broadcasts of Congressional and Presidential election debates which included all of the candidates that qualified for the general election ballot (and in the case of Presidential elections had enough ballot access for a theoretical win of the Electoral College) - and have candidates be obligated to appear at these debates or else face losing their spot on the ballot. What are your own thoughts on these proposals - or what else do you think is best way to do campaign finance reform?? cnn/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-costs/
Posted on: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 22:04:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015