A new idea for campain money.

Here is a thought of how to make the issues and the candidates more important than how rich are or how much money they can raise or how many unlimited smear ads you cna run since you have more money than your opponnent. I am against campaign finance reform but what if each candidate is allowed only $3 or $5 million to spend on their campaign and advertising? Then they would have to start out having to learn how to balance a budget because that is all they can spend. They wouldn't have to spend all that time worrying about rasing money but rather they could just talk about the issues. If someone runs out a month or two before, then they are not very good with a budget and we shouldn't want them in office anyway. And then their opponent can run on that issue if they budgeted well. It would be a good litmus test as to how they might handle a budget and our money. GIve them each an equal set amount and see who is better at handling money.

Obama always worked with other peoples money being a neghborhood organizer. I really don't think he has ever even had to balance a checkbook and look how freely he spends our money and how large our debt has gotten since he got into office. He does not have a clue how to cut back on spending if you don't have the money. He just asks for more and passes it on to the next generation.

We really need more liberals over here. I feel like I am debating myself. I do talk to myself a lot but normally not in public! :Loco: :snapoutofit: : Embarrassed:

Yes, we do...

The Viking wrote: Here is a thought of how to make the issues and the candidates more important than how rich are or how much money they can raise or how many unlimited smear ads you cna run since you have more money than your opponnent. I am against campaign finance reform but what if each candidate is allowed only $3 or $5 million to spend on their campaign and advertising? Then they would have to start out having to learn how to balance a budget because that is all they can spend. They wouldn't have to spend all that time worrying about rasing money but rather they could just talk about the issues. If someone runs out a month or two before, then they are not very good with a budget and we shouldn't want them in office anyway. And then their opponent can run on that issue if they budgeted well. It would be a good litmus test as to how they might handle a budget and our money. GIve them each an equal set amount and see who is better at handling money.

Obama always worked with other peoples money being a neghborhood organizer. I really don't think he has ever even had to balance a checkbook and look how freely he spends our money and how large our debt has gotten since he got into office. He does not have a clue how to cut back on spending if you don't have the money. He just asks for more and passes it on to the next generation.

Great idea V but the conservative supreme court justices ruled 5-4 that $ =free speech, so unfortunately your idea is dead in he water

JMC wrote:

The Viking wrote: Here is a thought of how to make the issues and the candidates more important than how rich are or how much money they can raise or how many unlimited smear ads you cna run since you have more money than your opponnent. I am against campaign finance reform but what if each candidate is allowed only $3 or $5 million to spend on their campaign and advertising? Then they would have to start out having to learn how to balance a budget because that is all they can spend. They wouldn't have to spend all that time worrying about rasing money but rather they could just talk about the issues. If someone runs out a month or two before, then they are not very good with a budget and we shouldn't want them in office anyway. And then their opponent can run on that issue if they budgeted well. It would be a good litmus test as to how they might handle a budget and our money. GIve them each an equal set amount and see who is better at handling money.

Obama always worked with other peoples money being a neghborhood organizer. I really don't think he has ever even had to balance a checkbook and look how freely he spends our money and how large our debt has gotten since he got into office. He does not have a clue how to cut back on spending if you don't have the money. He just asks for more and passes it on to the next generation.

Great idea V but the conservative supreme court justices ruled 5-4 that $ =free speech, so unfortunately your idea is dead in he water

That was a different case. That was the case of campaign finance and special interest groups being able to give whatever they want to their candidate in exchange for support and favors when they get in office. If they recieved no extra money from any big companies, then they would owe no favors.

I agree with you Viking. I would go one step further. I think all candidates should have to submit their campaign platform and qualifications in writing to their party for publication in print and on the web with an independant "con" statement. It would have to be limited to a certain length. I think all TV and radio advertising should be eliminated. Informed voters could read the publication or web site put out by each party and then decide how to vote.

I am Woman wrote: I agree with you Viking. I would go one step further. I think all candidates should have to submit their campaign platform and qualifications in writing to their party for publication in print and on the web with an independant "con" statement. It would have to be limited to a certain length. I think all TV and radio advertising should be eliminated. Informed voters could read the publication or web site put out by each party and then decide how to vote.

Even one step further. I think there should be one common website where all candidates have to answer how they would vote on all major issues. And what their promises would be on those issues. And if they have been in office, how they have voted on it in the past. Then we all can go there and see who we most agree with to vote for. Also it would document in writing what they promised so if they lied and voted differently when in office, we would vote them out next time. And we could then see their track record in black and white instead of listening to what they 'promise' to do or what they 'say' they have done.

There are limits like that if you accept public money, but both opted out.

Good points, it does seem like new Congressman spend half their time raising money for next election. Or is it a bad idea? If a pol is working on getting money, maybe he won't have time to spend our own money.