Obama has 10 times more campaign cash than Romney - $104 million war chest
36 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;35679468]Campaign funding should come from a national pool evenly distributed among presidential candidates, not from a private source. For one it would put an end to some candidate being able to speak louder than another, you heard of Gary Johnson at all? No? That's because he has a tenth of what Romney has.[/QUOTE]
No. How would these funds be raised? If not from a private source, then a public one no doubt - which means a tax. I'm not going to pay into a tax that will go to a candidate I don't support, and no one else will either.
Besides, making it illegal to donate money to the candidate of my choice is against freedom of speech.
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;35679468]Second it would allow more control over what candidates DO with the money such as outlawing attack ads. They'd have to actually campaign and convince people they would make a good president based on their own policies instead of spending the whole time doing the tar and feather routine.[/QUOTE]
Attack ads, as dumb and useless as the are, are protected under the freedom of speech.
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;35679468]Third, no one can 'buy' a candidate anymore, organizations can't pick and choose a candidate to donate money to because whether they donate $10 or $1 million it gets handed out evenly to candidates. So you don't get a rich organization funding a single candidate to get a better chance of getting a president that is sympathetic to them rather than someone else. It's all a media game, the one who can hold the spotlight the longest stands the best chance of making it to the final election.[/QUOTE]
See first response.
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;35679468]FOURTH, and most important if you ask me. With so many different candidates having equal opportunity to get their word out people would have to actually listen to what they have to say and read up on the different choices.[/QUOTE]
What they say is irrelevant to whether the media chooses to air them or not. Just look at Ron Paul.
And if you make a law ordering the media to distribute air time evenly, it's against freedom of press.
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;35679468]If they fuck up and misuse the money they get to pay for their mistakes out of their own pockets with interest, and the money gets redistributed through the campaign pool.[/QUOTE]
That's just stupid.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35680263]No. How would these funds be raised? If not from a private source, then a public one no doubt - which means a tax. I'm not going to pay into a tax that will go to a candidate I don't support, and no one else will either.
[/QUOTE]
Plenty of people don't support the war, yet they must still pay the taxes that pay for it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35680263]No. How would these funds be raised? If not from a private source, then a public one no doubt - which means a tax. I'm not going to pay into a tax that will go to a candidate I don't support, and no one else will either.
Besides, making it illegal to donate money to the candidate of my choice is against freedom of speech.
Attack ads, as dumb and useless as the are, are protected under the freedom of speech.
See first response.
What they say is irrelevant to whether the media chooses to air them or not. Just look at Ron Paul.
And if you make a law ordering the media to distribute air time evenly, it's against freedom of press.
That's just stupid.[/QUOTE]
Got any better ideas then? Because all I see is a broken plutocracy with voters who are stuck choosing between one sack of shit and another sack of shit.
The odds need to be leveled where all candidates have an equal opportunity to campaign.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35680618]Plenty of people don't support the war, yet they must still pay the taxes that pay for it.[/QUOTE]
This. Where's my right to not have to pay taxes toward military intervention in foreign counties? I don't support that, but they say it's for my own good.
What about other things I don't want my taxes used for?
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;35680638]Got any better ideas then? Because all I see is a broken plutocracy with voters who are stuck choosing between one sack of shit and another sack of shit.
The odds need to be leveled where all candidates have an equal opportunity to campaign. [/QUOTE]
I did start to think about such things
[url]http://facepunch.com/threads/1176590[/url]
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;35680638]This. Where's my right to not have to pay taxes toward military intervention in foreign counties? I don't support that, but they say it's for my own good.
What about other things I don't want my taxes used for?[/QUOTE]
Don't pay your taxes. It's really that simple. Or is civil disobedience bad?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35680854]I did start to think about such things
[url]http://facepunch.com/threads/1176590[/url]
Don't pay your taxes. It's really that simple. Or is civil disobedience bad?[/QUOTE]
Implementing limits to how long a politician can stay in power is great, I agree with you 100%.
As for not paying taxes, I think I'd have to become a mountain man to do that and I rather like being a blacksmith. That and I haven't finished my Flintlock rifle yet.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35680854]
Don't pay your taxes. It's really that simple. Or is civil disobedience bad?[/QUOTE]
"In this world there is nothing that is certain except death and taxes" - Benjamin Franklin
GL
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.