|
|
#1
10-17-2006, 01:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Public Financing of Campaigns
This is a debate I'm goint to have in a Poli Sci course. Someone tell me why we shouldn't have public financing of elections. Also this is the slide I'll be using as a backdrop (this is only the very first draft):
The Problem: Corruption Studies show PAC contributions affect legislators’ committee activity (but not floor votes) Ex. Favors written into unrelated bills (like tax breaks) Unqualified Appointments Ex: Mike Brown Our elected officials spend huge amounts of time fundraising instead of working Corruption costs us billions a year Ex: ... ? Public Financing would cost much less The Solution: Public Financing Goal is to diminish, not stop outside influence It works (see: U.S. Presidential Race, Australia, Hong Kong, 7 U.S. states and 3 major cities) It works (money is less effective when spent by outside groups) 
|
|
#3
10-17-2006, 03:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Financing of Campaigns
Politicians will get their slush funds and backhanders no matter what the laws are. This just gives them something to get started with.
|
|
#4
10-17-2006, 04:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Financing of Campaigns
You didn't read my post.
Specifically these parts: The goal is to diminish, not stop outside influence. Money is less effective (in campaigns) if it's spent by outside groups (527s, PACs, whatever). This is because they are by law not coordinated (even friendly fire takes campaigns off-message which you can see a great example of with the John Kerry camgaign) and they sometimes do overlapping work. This is not a thread about illegal bribery. It's about how our campaigns are financed.
|
|
#6
10-17-2006, 04:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Financing of Campaigns
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a thread about illegal bribery. It's about how our campaigns are financed. [/ QUOTE ] You seem to have contradicted yourself. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#8
10-17-2006, 05:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Financing of Campaigns
There are specific US states which have public financing laws and several other legislatures which have seriously considered such laws. If you find some articles and read about some of the problems public financing creates, some real-world problems become evident.
As an example: If you are going to start public financing for, say, the Hawaii State Legislature (bicameral, 51 in house, 25 in senate), who should get funding? Anyone? So if I'm a real estate agent, why shouldn't I run for office as an independent just to plaster my name and face all over the town? Using public funds would let me increase my private business. How about someone from the "Al-Queda Party"? Should (s)he be given the same amount as the Democrat or Republican candidate? When will the money be given? After the primary? Then how are primary campaigns funded? Before the primary? Then what's to stop an unknown Republican from taking public financing to run "against" a fellow Republican and using all the money for attack ads against the Democrat incumbent? Sorry, I have lots more to say on the subject, but the real world is much more difficult than most poli-sci PhD's would have their students believe.
|
|
#9
10-17-2006, 06:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Financing of Campaigns
All of those questions are answered sufficiently in the current systems of public financing.
Look to the U.S. Presidential campaign, look to Australia, look to Hong Kong, look to NYC. There are also 7 states and 2 major cities who have enacted "Clean Elections" laws (www.publicampaign.org). All of your hypothetical problems have been easily solved. Why do you hold an animosity towards PhDs? Why do you assume my professor is an advocate of public financing or believes it wouldn't be complex?
|
|
#10
10-17-2006, 09:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Financing of Campaigns
The main argument I can think of is that it is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions = free speech, you can look up that decision and quote from it for some good material.
The ACists make a good point that it can't hurt to cut the budget a little to have private financing, although this would be chump change if it resulted in a better government. You might also make the argument that the discoupling of the candidates from their contributors might make them less accountable to the people because people make campaign contributions, although I would feel dirty if I actually said that. Blatant plug I took over the Mods Playground for a little while. The topic is working (real work, not poker work).
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
