State funded campaign system?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:48 PM
Yes, you read the title right. Lately, I've been thinking about the many flaws in the world's main examples of democratic societies; politics based on money from lobbyists and corporations; external influence. I decided to write a thread based on my own question, sparked by the recent thread on corporatism in America, which can be found here:This is not is Corporatism by David9176.

Anyways, here is what I've been thinking: As many as you would like to deny it, there ARE some honest politicians out there in the system willing to obsolete the ways of capital greed and make the system work for you. Many of you will think of Ron Paul as the most popular example. However, these "Honest" policies usually require a heavy overhaul of our current system, along with an end to large corporate influence in the world, major countries and their political systems. It's basic knowledge to know that politicians host campaign parties and raise funds in various ways, along with climbing a corporate ladder to gain influence and prominence in some of the worlds biggest companies, ultimately opening visible and private doors to "behind-the-scenes" opportunities that allow them to sway and influence the masses in one way or another,subtly or not. All in all, it comes down to money, the amount the politicians have, and where they get it from; whether it be oil, insurance, wall street, or other lobbyists, and it's what they use to win and gain influence most effectively.

So, if you believe what I just said, then we can conclude that where the money comes from is a very important aspect as to who gains the power. Of course, some of you will argue that there is no solution and that the winner is predetermined by the powers that be, but I sincerely believe that the influence from TPTB comes in this very subtle form. In saying this, I believe it can be (potentially un-realisticly) resolved by one thing:

Equal funding to parties from the state; campaign functions gathering resources from the tax payer.

Yes, I know this statement alone will leave much to be resolved, and has many flaws, but I'll get to that yet. For now, just think about it: Say if the two biggest parties (yes, I know, just funding for the two biggest already makes my system flawed, but stay with me here...) such as Republicans and Democrats, or in Canada, Conservatives and Liberals were equally funded by Government (taxpayer) funds, both parties with enough money to make their campaigns and whatever functions are involved with the electoral season, and make their platform known. If both parties are allotted "X" amount of dollars to get their point across to the public, there can be no bias from any side except the very political ideologies from the party itself; on the surface, this nearly eliminates the outward influence from corporations because they have no way to (legally) participate in the campaign process.

Of course, like many solutions that could be too good to be true, there are several flaws to this problem. Like I already outlined, if the countries two biggest parties' platform is paid by taxpayers, it would only be equal to fund all other parties such as Green Parties, the Rhino Party, Marxist/Leninist Party, Communist Party, Anti-Labour Party, etc. However, on top, I would like to leave you with this:

If we can look at this at the surface for a moment, wouldn't an electoral race, both main parties (or however many "major" parties are running in a race) funded by us, the people, both parties with the same amount of money having to utilize it in the best possible way, give the general populace along with those political leaders that don't have the corporate sway like others do, equal footing to make a decision on who to vote for based solely on the ideologies of the parties, and the political leaders a chance to display what they believe based solely on their own ideologies, and not the external influence of corporations?

Corporations, private funding and catering to lobbyist groups have seemed to generate a bias within the democratic electoral system, a system plagued by consumer-saturated corporatism, and I believe that a complex system based on a funding from the public tax payers base of resources is the best way to solve this problem. Maybe a little bit to socialistic for some of you?
Let me know!


posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:52 PM
I completely agree with you OP. In many countries the candidates are supposed to have equal exposure in a positive way on major media - newspaper and TV - by law.

I heard that the US was supposed to be like that - but I see no evidence of it.

Yep -I think that parties could be formed with a certain number of signatures - then be given starting funds, and have to reach another fixed number of signatures from those funds before being accepted as a political entity.

At each election, each qualifying party then splits a pool of wealth to run their campaigns, and have auditors (selected by their opponents) follow them around to ensure they stay within the budget.

If any party gets some free press - then all parties then qualify for that same amount of exposure.

Take away the money trial from elections - and you would see some change - but it wouldnt take long for the scum to work out how to exploit the system - just need to keep closing the loopholes and shooting those who break the rules.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by Amagnon

Thank you Amagon for your reply. Yes, I believe it does make much sense, and as you've outlined, there are some steps that we can take to make the system to work. However, also like you've said, it may not take long for the external influence to work its way in one way or another unfortunately. But maybe with enough honest leaders in power, it may become obsolete! Plausible? Maybe not, but I'd sure like to think it is.

posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 06:28 PM
*bump* Guess no one is interested to discuss? I always wanted to know what other people thought of such a system.

new topics

log in