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.
Easy step we can do. No contributions to individuals running for an office. Any money goes to a common fund that is distributed amongst the candidates. Equally. With a maximum amount per person correlated to the number of parties involved in the election.
Example: mayoral race with 2 parties and a fund of $500,000. Each person receives 250,000 for their campaign.
Same race but with $1,000,000 in the fund? That’s right. Each member gets 300,000 to use.
3 parties involved with that 1M fund? 333,000 per person but goes to 500,000 when the funds available allow for it
Catch: all donations go to this fund and all money used from this fund must be accounted for. Anyone found to be using their own money or any donations that did not come from the fund constitutes an automatic forfeiture of their campaign and any unspent money of their allotted amount gets returned to the funds.
Said returned funds do not get distributed to the other campaigns.
Any unused money of the fund at the end of the election is used by civil services budgets.
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 always give money to candidates. They often 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.