The Sum Of All Campaign Evils

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-21-2017, 08:26 AM)hollodero Wrote: I agree, that doesn't look good. And every side has to do it becuase the other side does it, and so on. Only question is, would a republicanesque/libertarianesque person like yourself ever be in favor of public campaign funding and restriction of additional donor money. Because one thing seems clear, only more state and more (specific) regulations could ever solve that problem.... isn't that true.

Yeah, I am not an anarchist or anything. I do understand there is room for necessary rules and regulations, I just don't want them involved in things they shouldn't be involved in. Campaign finance reform is something they should be in.

I would probably want it so no money from outside a state can effect a state-level election, and same on the county level. Maybe look at something to limit Super PACs as well. Then I would create standardized non-partisan polling method and allow anyone who polls say... 5% to join the debates, while giving each of them equal allotments of funds to operate their campaign off of.

Not sure if any of that would work, but even if it did, the problem is that realistically the majority of people get elected because they spent a lot of money to get elected. So it would be hard to get enough people elected who are not enriched by the campaign process, in order to pass any kind of meaningful reform.

Then next would be the whole lobbyist problem. AKA Legal Politician Bribes (exhibit B)