It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Campaign Finance Reform Is Bunk

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 01:24 AM
Another issue on which I'm skeptical. I've long been flirting with rather the opposite view, that for this system to properly work we should deregulate campaign finance altogether, at least in terms of dollar limits. I do support transparency in campaign finance.

Why can't a billionaire jump in behind me and fund TheBadCabbie for president campaign? Campaign finance laws. Why can't that guy who just won the lottery donate a million dollars to my presidential campaign? Campaign finance laws. A billionaire, or even a multi-millionaire, could absorb some of the cost of an expensive campaign, I cannot. At a one thousand dollar per person or company limit, I'd have to cast a very wide net to finance an adequate campaign, an unlikely proposition.

It doesn't really solve the problem in my opinion. You can limit contributions to fifty dollars per person, it still doesn't change the fact that vast sums of money are spent on these elections. An individual holding greater wealth will still have a tremendous advantage. A campaign that would be an insurmountable expense to an individual of median income might be only a modest expense to a wealthy enough individual. Campaign finance laws don't really change this, at all.

What then, do we ban a person from spending their own money on their own campaign? That seems wrong to me. If I'm willing to give my time to the torturous occupation of government, why shouldn't I be able to also devote my personal resources to said campaign? To ban such would seem to me to be an infringement of a fundamental right. If I want to throw all my chips in to run for office, that should be my right, it should be anyone's right.

Super-pacs and other loopholes sort of make individual contribution caps hurt the little person in my opinion. The big players can still get the big money, but an average gal will be hurt by individual donation capping because she probably won't have access to the same machinations. Even if you close all the loopholes, it just creates another one. Companies will pump their CEO's full of money and then send em off to run for office.

Perhaps a limit on the amount of money that can be spent on a campaign? I dunno. Even that seems problematic. I'm not sure what the right answer here is, I just don't think the common proposed reforms are the right solutions either.

I thought this point of view deserved its own thread so that it can be properly discussed. What do you think?

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 01:44 AM
I don't disagree with the idea, but at the same time I don't want any of these things to decide who has the most money for the next election-


Etc, etc, etc.

The church current laws don't work (obviously) but eliminating them doesn't actuality help.

Campaign finance limits won't help, dark money would just fund "volunteers"

Your average folks can't win an election. Ironically you'd need a communist government to even try- giving equal air time to every candidate.

I'd be curious to see what a national tournament would produce, though. Every single town votes on their champion, then it goes to county, region, state, time zone, etc.
At every level people would have to pick their person.
Might be interesting, at least.
Not like our current terrifying system of "screw you or screw them"


log in