campaign funds - friday mass debate

Patrick Bateman said in one of the election threads that he thinks it is stupid that public money pays for election campaigns

i actually think exactly the opposite.

i would LOVE to see a system that made it so

- once you have seats or _ percent of the popular vote, you are no longer able to use ANY money other than government money for your campaign.

the allowing private money to be used for start ups would make it so new parties could form, independants could run etc etc

You could have a tiered funding where if you hit seats or _ percent you get _ flat

I think one of the biggest issues going in canada and the states is that parties are owned by unions or big business.

thoughts

And how, pray tell, are moneyed interests supposed to control the government for the People then, genius? Duh!

I am pretty much with you GW. I haven't really given it to much thought as to how it would work, but I think running for office should be accessible to most people and not a major financial undertaking just to compete for TV time. Between campaign financing and lobbyists our vote will become worthless.

1 million is [HTML_REMOVED] chicken feed AND as pointed out do you want corporations funding political parties like in the excited states ?

OR why do you think there are so many movies stars in politics ,is it because they feel the civic duty call OR they have brand recognition ?

Consider everyone knows who Ronald Reagan ,Arnold Swartzenflugger ,Sonny Bono is or was SO there is a whole lot of money that a celeb candidate does not have to spend to get elected and we are talking saving tens of millions in the excited states for a movie star/celeb

I tried to give the NDP candidate 100$ in cash but the treasurer told me they could not accept more than 25$ cash … they DID accept VISA

So Obviuosly this NDP candidate Nathan Cullen is playing the game clean as opposed to those cons who were exposed in the last election as doing some shady funding practises and he was also returned for a 4th term

Watch for the name Nathan Cullen … Cabinet material IMO

copied from the other thread

- once you have seats or _ percent of the popular vote, you are no longer able to use ANY money other than government money for your campaign.

good idea.

With a limited number of advertising dollars, maybe political parties would refrain (or at least diminish) from attack ads… which are frankly, an embarrassment.

good idea.

With a limited number of advertising dollars, maybe political parties would refrain (or at least diminish) from attack ads… which are frankly, an embarrassment.

You could tie it to a set amount plus some per seat where you have a candidate running. And a set portion of the money has to be advertising specific to that candidate and a portion can go to the generic party ads.

I've been known to have a bad mix of naivety and stubbornness, is there a glaring error in this thinking?

You could tie it to a set amount plus some per seat where you have a candidate running. And a set portion of the money has to be advertising specific to that candidate and a portion can go to the generic party ads.

I've been known to have a bad mix of naivety and stubbornness, is there a glaring error in this thinking?

Probably. (no offence intended, just that im sure there would be some sort of weird incentive/intended consequence that come out of it).

The only thing that I can think of off the top of my head, is that campaigns are incredibly expensive to run (im assuming). And that limiting dollars, could limit the exposure of candidates, thereby limiting the overall impact of campaigns, which could decrease their relevance to voters? i.e. if its not in your face, you dont think about it, and dont feel engaged, and possibly dont vote (thats all pure hypothesis and would depend on actual numbers)

edit. on the flip side, if the fed gov't gave enough $$$ to circumvent that problem it could take on too much financial burden?

good idea.

With a limited number of advertising dollars, maybe political parties would refrain (or at least diminish) from attack ads… which are frankly, an embarrassment.

That was my thoughts too!

Really though considering the news is free coverage for all big party leaders there should be a limited spending amount that does not involve corporate bullies. Maybe even limit the ammount of those garbage plastic signs that don't do shit.

Only one problem as mentioned earlier in the election thread. I think there has to be some restriction in this funding specifically for.. Bloc Quebecois type parties. They receive federal funds yet no one can vote for them any where else in Canada. Sure where not on the ballot in Ontario. And i 20 years have had no ambition to become a true national party. And that is a problem.

That sounds like an excellent idea. Keep all the big money backers from all sides of the campaign out. Legislate that eery MP has to hold x number of town hall meetings in their riding eery year, so that they actually know what people think. Maybe we could actually get a government that represents people.

Problem is that there is so much private money running things, that it would be very difficult to make this happen

Only one problem as mentioned earlier in the election thread. I think there has to be some restriction in this funding specifically for.. Bloc Quebecois type parties. They receive federal funds yet no one can vote for them any where else in Canada. Sure where not on the ballot in Ontario. And i 20 years have had no ambition to become a true national party. And that is a problem.

See, I disagree. I dont like it. But I disagree. The Bloc isnt a problem, its a party that irritates us. If I wanted to start a 'Lets-get-UBC-O-to-revoke-Patrick-Bateman's-degree Party', then I should be able to do so. That said, if no one votes for me (and my party), then I dont get much/any dollah-dollah-bills. (or loonies).

edit. I do feel a tiny bit bad about my idea for a political party, but it was meant in good fun.

That sounds like an excellent idea. Keep all the big money backers from all sides of the campaign out. Legislate that eery MP has to hold x number of town hall meetings in their riding eery year, so that they actually know what people think. Maybe we could actually get a government that represents people.

Problem is that there is so much private money running things, that it would be very difficult to make this happen

Moneys given out should therefore be a product of popular vote attained AND number of riding's represented.

The only thing that I can think of off the top of my head, is that campaigns are incredibly expensive to run (im assuming).

Why does it have to be … could you get elected in this day and age on the basis of a viral youtube video? Maybe not realistically, but the future should be heading that way. Between town halls and the Internet, I'm sure the cost of electioneering (and government) could be reduced. You have to admit that a lot of people don't take elections seriously to begin with. Just look at the NDP in Quebec for starters and the fact that almost half of eligible voters don't even vote.

Maybe one day (sigh) we will be able to vote on legislation ourselves, or hold an online community caucus for our MP on how to vote.

Its a pity … one of Ignatieff's campaign promises (for what its worth) was to start Elections Canada investigating the feasibility of electronic voting for the next federal election. The idea of volunteers sifting through pieces of paper on election night will seem moronic in hindsight.

ya, because electronic voting works so well in the US. Just ask Al Gore