Clarification: My vote for a $5000 limit would apply to all contributers, individuals, unions, agencies, and corporate. No exceptions. I note in the “results” I have a lot of company.
Big money from any source should not define our elections or politics. The vast majority of us are not union heads, agency heads, PAC leaders, or corporate heads…just ordinary folks whose sense of “value” is restrained. $5000 is a lot of money to me. How about you? Frankly, I don’t know how to accomplish such limits with the vested interests of both parties, or even a 3rd spoiler party. The back scratchng in government now resemles a pack of juvneille monkeys….and you and I have litle to say about it really.
Only real problem I have with “Pubic Financing” is who determines what level it begins to apply? I do not trust the SES+ to be fair about it. A secondary issue, given I am an “old dude” (my daughter’s nickname for me) I still believe elections should reflect only the voice of the populace, individually, not government…let alone PACs, Corporations, Unions, Agencies, etc,…which I suspect makes me naive in today’s world.
All that said, vis a vis my mistrust, I’d be willing to try public fiancing if it kicked in the moment a candidate declares him or herself. Might level the field a bit….what do others think, since it has a high vote?
Only socializing market segments that provide for critical infrastructure related to the health of the social fabric or directly impacting national security. Actually a very light handed approach in the end. Free-ish markets work just fine for most things.
I too am torn between $5000 and public financing. I would like public financing IF it were structured well enough to allow for third party or marginal candidates. The problem is how does one go about that? So absent any realistic chance for that, I think $5000 would be a reasonable limit. Then I would also like to see TV ads limited and given free air time for the leading candidates that meet a threshold of support. Issue ads should also be limited as well, especially on broadcasting since they are using public airways.
I voted for public financing, but there are some problems. How does one qualify for it? In NYC, public financing is available once the candidate has raised a certain amount from other sources. So maybe a combination of a some $$ threshold of contributions of less than some $$/person for large district races. The threshold and $ max per contributor might be variable depending on the race, e.g. a county legislature race in a rural county might have a lower threshold and a lower max rate for contributors than the mayoral race in a large city. All such contributions would be reported; no PACs, no corporations, no unions. Re-institution of the fairness in reporting for all media. (No, I don’t have a workable hought right now for internet sites.)
Aridog, I suspect that you and one other person agree. I would expect the each vote that I saw represented 11.11 percent of the vote. If that’s the case, 1 person vote for no limits, 2 for a $5000 limit and 6 for public financing. If the 11.11 represents more than one, the ratios would be the same 1:2:6 or 2:4:12, and so on.
bettykath …Huh? I voted for $5k, but also said I’d consider public financing if a workable plan was available. It isn’t, so I go with the $5k and that would include all corporate, union, agency, etc. interests…no one person or entity can pony up over $5k.
Now if Public Financing was workable….how would it be funded? We’re already broke. In short, just cutting another program, military or domestic doesn’t really raise funds…it just re-disperses the loans we’ve taken out.
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 
Clarification: My vote for a $5000 limit would apply to all contributers, individuals, unions, agencies, and corporate. No exceptions. I note in the “results” I have a lot of company.
Big money from any source should not define our elections or politics. The vast majority of us are not union heads, agency heads, PAC leaders, or corporate heads…just ordinary folks whose sense of “value” is restrained. $5000 is a lot of money to me. How about you? Frankly, I don’t know how to accomplish such limits with the vested interests of both parties, or even a 3rd spoiler party. The back scratchng in government now resemles a pack of juvneille monkeys….and you and I have litle to say about it really.
Only real problem I have with “Pubic Financing” is who determines what level it begins to apply? I do not trust the SES+ to be fair about it. A secondary issue, given I am an “old dude” (my daughter’s nickname for me) I still believe elections should reflect only the voice of the populace, individually, not government…let alone PACs, Corporations, Unions, Agencies, etc,…which I suspect makes me naive in today’s world.
All that said, vis a vis my mistrust, I’d be willing to try public fiancing if it kicked in the moment a candidate declares him or herself. Might level the field a bit….what do others think, since it has a high vote?
Aridog,
Personally I like strict limits for all, but public finance could work if it was structured properly.
Gene … fair enough, but what “structure” would you advise?
Only socializing market segments that provide for critical infrastructure related to the health of the social fabric or directly impacting national security. Actually a very light handed approach in the end. Free-ish markets work just fine for most things.
I too am torn between $5000 and public financing. I would like public financing IF it were structured well enough to allow for third party or marginal candidates. The problem is how does one go about that? So absent any realistic chance for that, I think $5000 would be a reasonable limit. Then I would also like to see TV ads limited and given free air time for the leading candidates that meet a threshold of support. Issue ads should also be limited as well, especially on broadcasting since they are using public airways.
I voted for public financing, but there are some problems. How does one qualify for it? In NYC, public financing is available once the candidate has raised a certain amount from other sources. So maybe a combination of a some $$ threshold of contributions of less than some $$/person for large district races. The threshold and $ max per contributor might be variable depending on the race, e.g. a county legislature race in a rural county might have a lower threshold and a lower max rate for contributors than the mayoral race in a large city. All such contributions would be reported; no PACs, no corporations, no unions. Re-institution of the fairness in reporting for all media. (No, I don’t have a workable hought right now for internet sites.)
Another thought: get rid of the Dem/Rep controlled corporation that decides the national debates. Return that job to the League of Women Voters.
Aridog, I suspect that you and one other person agree. I would expect the each vote that I saw represented 11.11 percent of the vote. If that’s the case, 1 person vote for no limits, 2 for a $5000 limit and 6 for public financing. If the 11.11 represents more than one, the ratios would be the same 1:2:6 or 2:4:12, and so on.
bettykath …Huh? I voted for $5k, but also said I’d consider public financing if a workable plan was available. It isn’t, so I go with the $5k and that would include all corporate, union, agency, etc. interests…no one person or entity can pony up over $5k.
Now if Public Financing was workable….how would it be funded? We’re already broke. In short, just cutting another program, military or domestic doesn’t really raise funds…it just re-disperses the loans we’ve taken out.