Display:
I think a possible measure is, to give enough public money to the candidates, so they can have a serious campaign without too much fund raising.

Something like 2$ per vote in every house, senate, or presidential election to the party, getting at least 0.25% of the vote should be enough.
Votes to 1% parties like the greens would still have an effect.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sat Jul 26th, 2008 at 06:50:21 PM EST
I wholeheartedly agree.  The way this has been framed in the US is "Well, I don't want MY money going to elect THOSE scoundrels."  My response is "Well, there are plenty of people who are more than happy to pay for their campaigns, and it is NOT your interests THEY will advocate."  All I can hope is that, as people start to see  the real cost of letting interested parties finance elections, there will be greater support for public finance.  

The Supreme Court has ruled that money donated to political campaigns is equivalent to speech and is therefore protected.  For that reason I believe that a very generous program of public finances is appropriate. Ideally, this would include money for publicly financed responses to third party ads.  I see no justification for the radio and television stations, which are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, not to be required to make substantial time available for free or even more time made available at a greatly reduced price for debates, individual appearances and campaign ads.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jul 26th, 2008 at 08:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series