Public Campaign Financing

[FayeforCure]

More benefits than drawbacks to public campaign financing
Dennis Brady - Exeter, N.H.

In "Fix earmarks, not financing," Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., misses the point (Opposing view, Defense earmarks debate, Monday).

Campaign financing for public office by private donors is more about influence peddling than it is about First Amendment, freedom of speech rights. The manner in which political campaigns are run requires incredible sums of money.


It is presumed that spending more money guarantees a win because more media time can be purchased.

Further, the wealthy who run for office inject their money to ensure success.

The present system also favors the incumbent because this person is most likely already doing the bidding of his private financers.

The benefits of using public money far exceed the drawbacks. Political campaigns would be shorter and more focused since fewer dollars would be available.

The perceived, if not actual, buying of influence by lobbyists, industry associations and unions would be eliminated.

This would then give the voter a bigger voice in the selection process. It would likely also reduce the seemingly endless insulting campaign ads that do more to mislead the public than educate it.

Citizens' needs lost
Lowell J. Smith - Dallas Center, Iowa

I must ask the question: Am I the only one who sees that money is not speech, that it is the megaphone through which speech is transmitted? It is like any meeting, if one speaker has a megaphone and the other doesn't, which one gets heard?

What chance does the average citizen has to be heard when corporations and unions are allowed to spend huge amounts of money? We have seen it already in the health care debate, where the insurance companies have bought the politicians who have to make these decisions and individual needs are ignored.

Now the Supreme Court is going to rule on whether or not corporations can flood politicians with money.

I am not optimistic that the nation's highest court will rule in favor of the individual citizen.

Posted at 12:09 AM/ET, November 20, 2009 in Campaign finance - Letters, Letter to the editor | Permalink

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/11/letters-more-benefits-than-drawbacks-to-public-campaign-financing-.html

[NotNow]

Stop using public money for political campaigns!  Limit campaign spending instead!  No more than $500k for a congressional race.  $1M for a Senatorial race and NO MORE THAN $3M FOR PRES!  Spare us all of the crap and stick to the central message!  Limit campaign length to three months.  We will have less of the foolishness and lessinfluence can be had on our "leaders".

[BridgeTroll]

Do ALL parties and campaigns get equal money?  If I run for congress do I get 500k?  Talk about a complete mess.  If what Faye wants happens it will be chaos... and expensive.

[FayeforCure]

Stop using public money for political campaigns!  Limit campaign spending instead!  No more than $500k for a congressional race.  $1M for a Senatorial race and NO MORE THAN $3M FOR PRES!  Spare us all of the crap and stick to the central message!  Limit campaign length to three months.  We will have less of the foolishness and lessinfluence can be had on our "leaders".

NotNow, I happen to agree with you on principle. Thanks for your valuable input.