Last week was the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision enshrining the idea that money in politics is not corruption, but constitutionally protected speech. States and cities across the US are battling the rotten legacy of that decision.
Last week was the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision enshrining the idea that money in politics is not corruption, but constitutionally protected speech. States and cities across the US are battling the rotten legacy of that decision.
So equal funds for all parties, even those with minimal support? Interesting idea, I’d like to see how it works in practice.
However, this won’t solve the PAC issue.
the issue i see with being concerned that low supported groups would get more money then they would otherwise…is the point. the main reason other parties don’t have a presence is because they do not have the money to honestly present themselves. and we are talking reach here, if they are given equal reach, and what they say is agreed to by more people, then it turns out that they didn’t have minimal support, they were being quashed by special interests
Well, lack of money and also FPTP
A group designed to raise money for a candidate is not allowed. Anyone who uses that money forfeits their campaign.
I thought I covered that
The best a PAC could do would be to flood the common coffer. Which means every candidate benefits up to the maximum allowable.
The numbers I gave were purely for example sake. I’m thinking total maximum as a function of the place to be governed overs median salary or gdp. Idk. Something tied to the areas economic and social health to incentivise improving the average person’s lot in life instead of the richest few
PACs don’t give money to candidates. They just express their opinions in a way that aligns with a candidate’s reelection. I think drawing a line here that doesn’t infringe on ordinary political commentary is a bit challenging.