If Political Campaigns & Fundraising Were Outlawed, Would We Have Better Representation?

Posted on July 5th, 2011 by admin1 in Political Campaign Advertising

1. Politicians would not be in the pockets of rich individuals or corporations when deciding what’s best for the people
2. Voters would have to watch debates, read up on the candidates and otherwise become more infomed to make their voting decisions. Less informed voters would either have to get informed, or pass & not vote, which would be one less un-informed vote
3. Less chances of voters deciding based on slick advertising campaigns, which are notoriously deceptive anyway. People shouldn’t be picking their candidate the same way the pick their laundry detergent, should they?
4. We would do away with an insane waste of money which could be better used just about anywhere else
5. We wouldn’t have to listen to campaign ads 24/7 or deal with road sign pollution.

Just a little theory of mine. What are your thoughts?

That’s my theory, but I’ll let you share it:

One of the greatest atrocities in the U.S. is that our “elected” officials can be swayed by campaign financing from lobbyists of large companies with a vested interest (cigarette, automakers, banks, pharmaceutical, defense contractors, you name it). If they give a large enough amount of money to a senator’s campaign, you KNOW that senator will be “inclined” to vote in favor of any bill that will favor that company or industry.

If you agree that “pay-to-play” is not fair, write your federal Congressmen, and the President, and ask them to sponsor a bill to restrict campaign contributions from any single person or company (maybe $250?) . To enact this, one alternative might be for the government to give anyone who wants to run a set amount of money (say $5 million for a congressional seat and $20 million for President). Then they would all have the same amount of money to spend on advertising, and not be beholden to anyone for votes.

Also, term limits (maybe 12 years) on Congressmen would prevent them from becoming so powerful and potentially corrupt.

Or, does anyone have a better idea?
Thanks.

10 Comments on “If Political Campaigns & Fundraising Were Outlawed, Would We Have Better Representation?”

  1. Sarah Palin

    You Betcha.

    Those are good ideas that would make for a better election.References : Sarah Palin
    Often Duplicated,
    Never Stimulated.

  2. Zap

    YES! I like your theory!References :

  3. Russian '12

    That’s my theory, but I’ll let you share it:

    One of the greatest atrocities in the U.S. is that our "elected" officials can be swayed by campaign financing from lobbyists of large companies with a vested interest (cigarette, automakers, banks, pharmaceutical, defense contractors, you name it). If they give a large enough amount of money to a senator’s campaign, you KNOW that senator will be "inclined" to vote in favor of any bill that will favor that company or industry.

    If you agree that "pay-to-play" is not fair, write your federal Congressmen, and the President, and ask them to sponsor a bill to restrict campaign contributions from any single person or company (maybe $250?) . To enact this, one alternative might be for the government to give anyone who wants to run a set amount of money (say $5 million for a congressional seat and $20 million for President). Then they would all have the same amount of money to spend on advertising, and not be beholden to anyone for votes.

    Also, term limits (maybe 12 years) on Congressmen would prevent them from becoming so powerful and potentially corrupt.

    Or, does anyone have a better idea?
    Thanks.References :

  4. Brown9500v1

    How would we know anything about who we were voting for?References :

  5. regular american

    That’s the best idea because all those hundreds of millions could be re-directed. It shouldn’t cost $100 million to get elected mayor of New York.References :

  6. Blah

    Sounds interesting. Probably wouldn’t solve all of our problems with politicians but might help a little. It’s certainly worth a try but I doubt you’d be able to get enough support for it to pass. Interest groups have a lot of money and power and I doubt they’d go without a fight. A fight where they’d be able to make slick advertisements.References :

  7. Return of Bite My Shiny Metal...

    And while we’re at it, let’s just get rid of that pesky 1st amendment.References :

  8. RitchWilliams

    I don’t know if I would go that far, but I do think that political parties should be outlawed. Too many people vote ‘Democrat’ or ‘Republican’ without having a clue what the issues are. The political parties are the lazy person’s way of deciding. If there were no political parties, a voter would be pretty much required to be informed on where and for what a candidate stands. Then, too, a representative would not have a party affiliation that would force him or put pressure on her to vote against her values, beliefs, knowledge and constituents.

    In such a case, a campaign would be necessary. Otherwise, how would you know where a person stood?References :

  9. Peace through blinding force

    Yeah. I agree with your plan.
    D.C. bureaucrats should use guns, badges and handcuffs to control what is allowed to be said about politicians.References :

  10. john

    wouldn’t have those kick ass campaign comercials that run evry 5 minutes :PReferences :

Leave a Reply

More News