Public money means spending our taxes. Private money buys advantage and opportunity for the weathly. Both mixes the worst of both. How would you fund the elections?

 

If you decide public or both how would you determine who gets funded? Can anyone apply? Should it be matching where they only get funded if they already have money. If private should there be limits? Should an American have the right (some would argue it's a free speech issue) to give $10,000,000 to a candidate? Does that buy too much favor?

Public money means spending our taxes. Private money buys advantage and opportunity for the weathly. Both mixes the worst of both. How would you fund the elections?

 

If you decide public or both how would you determine who gets funded? Can anyone apply? Should it be matching where they only get funded if they already have money. If private should there be limits? Should an American have the right (some would argue it's a free speech issue) to give $10,000,000 to a candidate? Does that buy too much favor?

Private money from individuals with a set limit. This stops bulls*** PACs being formed as shells to donate a f***load of money to campaigns as both sides do. And candidates can't raid their private funds except to donate to their campaign to the set limit. It makes it a lot easier for anybody to run instead of the billionaires we get stuck with.

 

I know many people here don't like Michael Moore but one of my favorite pieces he did was bringing a pimp to Congress and the pimp confronts Republican and Democratic congressmen and the national committees calling them "b****es and hos" and telling them that they are just glorified prostitutes turning tricks for special interest Johns.

Even without a PAC, groups have been known to bundle their contributions when presenting them to the candidate. As in "Hi this is Morey. We have 20 checks from our execs and we would like to meet with the candidate to give them to him. By the way is the candidate aware that recent gov't regulations have impacted . . . "