It's a good id. But still, 150 mlj is a lot of money. If you compare with other elections (germany, Belgium, France or even UK) they are much cheaper!! So get that budget down.

I agree we need a way to isolate the candidate and the party from the money but the problem is how to determine who gets what.

At this time, I am more infavor of using the 2% solution as a base, e.g. letting every one have freedom dollars. see the book the 2% solution, http://www.mattmilleronline.com/

I would personally add two other "conditions"

1) That the TV stations must sell time at very low rates to political candidates and

2) That the rates be lower for longer presentations and for multiple candidate presentations.

I don't want to prevent candidates from "speaking" but what to try to level the playing field and try to make it more likely that we get more than sound bite ads and perhaps even inter candidate debates...

Note: Two other ideas about financing that are directly contridictory are:

1) Make all contributions anomonous so that a contributor can support his idea/candidate but not purchase influance.

2) Publish the names of all "significant" contributers and their "background" so that we know what groups support who.

"National" elections in other countries are, by and large, much less costly to run because the countries themselves are smaller both geographically and population-wise. You can't accurately compare Belgium to the U.S. for these purposes.

Furthermore, what's wrong with spending time fundraising? Whilst fundraising a candidate gets to go out and meet people, spread their message, etc. Plus, as both major parties have shown in this election season, there are always new and innovative ways of reaching and interacting with people who either choose to just volunteer or who donate in small amounts. Likewise, just because money comes from public coffers doesn't mean it's going to be spent any better. I'd argue it'd be spent worse!

Fundraising is also a good way of gauging public support for a candidate. If people feel comfortable with and put trust in a person, they're more likely to give than not. I for one don't like the fact that my tax dollars go to a candidate I don't agree with and do not support as it is (I actually stopped contributing to the fund this year on my tax form).

I completly agree with seymoudp. This idea is not just bad--but really BAD. The public must be given the chance to combat the Liberal Media. The only way to do that is by allowing fund raising.

I disagree because fund raising is a way for candidates to show and gather support. Why should some no-name, backwater, hick that wouldn't even receive the electoral votes in his own state get as much campaign money as the leading two party candidates? People contribute money to who they want to win. The leading campaign fund raisers often win the elections because they've had loyal supporters from the onset, supportive enough to donate money to what they believe is a good cause. There is no way in hell I'd donate to the campaign fund if it was going to be distributed to my candidates enemies. I see where fairness plays a role in this idea, but it's highly impractical because we couldn't develop criteria for eligible candidates. Hell, for $150 million, I'll run for president! I'll pay my girlfriend $10 million to be my campaign manager ;)

I agree with public funding, with equal amounts given to each candidate; to be spent. This way; the candidates standing for the working class, who are obviously at a disadvantage money wise, have an equal opportunity to make their platform known. Also each party should be allowed equal time in at least one T.V. Debate and one (one on one) discussion with an identical impartial interviewer. Any one party should not be allowed an advantage over the others, due to any affiliations, political or otherwise. limeylady