Forum Game Talk in questions.

[Unintentional]

Talk in questions.

How about if all federal election campaigns were 100% federally funded and no one could contribute to any candidate or run any independant ads? If no one could contribute money could candidates be controlled by a few wealthy people?

 

[Ralan]

Talk in questions.

"Is that what you intended? "

Or was it Unintentional?

 

[CaryP]

Talk in questions.

Originally posted by Unintentional@Sep 6 2004, 12:52 PM
How about if all federal election campaigns were 100% federally funded and no one could contribute to any candidate or run any independant ads? If no one could contribute money could candidates be controlled by a few wealthy people?

​

And who would fund this "federally funded" election campaign? Wouldn't the American taxpayer get saddled with the cost?

How would the funds be divided? Would any lunatic be able to get an equal amount of federal funds for their campaign? Would the legitimate third parties get the short shrift?

Wouldn't the wealthy corporatists find a way to continue "buying" politicians anyway? Haven't they always?

Wouldn't we have more of the same if the federal govt. make a bureacracy of the elections like everything else they touch?

Wouldn't it be better to limit total contributions received and total money spent to something like $5 million per campaign with no carry over to future campaigns and limiting individual contributions to $100? Wouldn't it be great if any excess contributions received and not spent had to be refunded proportionatley to ALL contributors?

Wouldn't it be better if all political action committees would be banned along with "soft" money raised and spent?

Wouldn't it be better if foreign contributions were punishable by death for treason?

Have I made my point clear enough for you?

 

[Unintentional]

Talk in questions.

Couldn't each candidate that got a certain number of signature in each state be given the same amount to campaign in that state?

Couldn't we also give this amount to any nutball who got enough signatures?

Couldn't each candidate be given like 100,000 per state that they got enough signatures in?

Wouldn't it be worth the tax expenditure to have American taxpayers control elections than American corporations?

Couldn't we have draconian penalties to any group or corporation that tries to get around this?

Wouldn't the cost of living go down slightly to offset the tax increase because companies won't be free from prosecution for shenanagans and have to charge a free and fair price for their service?

 

[CaryP]

Talk in questions.

Couldn't each candidate that got a certain number of signature in each state be given the same amount to campaign in that state?

Couldn't we also give this amount to any nutball who got enough signatures?

Couldn't each candidate be given like 100,000 per state that they got enough signatures in?

Could it be that you have some point here? Would it work to qualify by state? Are there an equal number of electoral college votes in each state? If not, why would a candidate bother collecting signatures in states with few electoral college votes? Would your state-by-state proposals work in a national election?

Wouldn't it be worth the tax expenditure to have American taxpayers control elections than American corporations?

Would it be the American taxpayer in control of the elections or the federal govt. in control of the elections? Isn't the federal govt. controlled by global corporatists?

Couldn't we have draconian penalties to any group or corporation that tries to get around this?

Don't we have enough draconian rules, regulations, laws, penalties, etc. that make you just want to puke? Wouldn't the rules have to be pretty straight forward to discourage "getting around" the rules? Wouldn't an immediate firing squad for any infractions of corporate involvement discourage attempts to buy candidates? But would it stop this activity? Wouldn't this also be unconstitutional without due process? Aren't there draconian penalties in existance for corporate fraud? Are we seeing almost record amounts of corporate fraud in the headlines for the last couple of years? Were all that many global corporatists discouraged from "getting around" the rules and regulations?

Wouldn't the cost of living go down slightly to offset the tax increase because companies won't be free from prosecution for shenanagans and have to charge a free and fair price for their service?

Where is the connection between election regulations and the cost of living? I don't see even a remote connection, do you? Would a tax increase be necessary for what should be a $50 million expenditure (assuming 10 qualifying candidates at $5 million each) at most under a limited federal funding of the presidential election? With a $3.0 trillion spending budget, wouldn't $50 million be so inconsequential as to not even show up as a line item? Wouldn't we have to expand your program to all federal elections for House and Senate positions, seriously expanding the bureaucracy of the "Dept. of Federal Elections" (possible bureacracy name)? Could your proposal be the typical federal govt. response to all "problems" i.e. more govt., more cost, and more interference and regulation?

Why can't all elections be decided by something easy that is witnessed and easily verified? Wouldn't it be more satisfying, or at least less annoying to see elections settled by something like a fist fight, or an endurance race, or possibly a duel with single shot pistols? Aren't you tired of or maybe outraged with the whole "election" and campaign process in this country? Are you familiar with Paul Lyon's comments on the federal elections/campaign conventions? Don't you think he has some keen insight into the current state of affairs? Why are we debating here? Shouldn't we move this conversation to the 2004 elections, or are you committed to posting these questions here?

 

[Grayson]

Talk in questions.

Originally posted by CaryP@Sep 7 2004, 07:35 AM

Couldn't each candidate that got a certain number of signature in each state be given the same amount to campaign in that state?

Couldn't we also give this amount to any nutball who got enough signatures?

Couldn't each candidate be given like 100,000 per state that they got enough signatures in?

Could it be that you have some point here? Would it work to qualify by state? Are there an equal number of electoral college votes in each state? If not, why would a candidate bother collecting signatures in states with few electoral college votes? Would your state-by-state proposals work in a national election?

Wouldn't it be worth the tax expenditure to have American taxpayers control elections than American corporations?

Would it be the American taxpayer in control of the elections or the federal govt. in control of the elections? Isn't the federal govt. controlled by global corporatists?

Couldn't we have draconian penalties to any group or corporation that tries to get around this?

Don't we have enough draconian rules, regulations, laws, penalties, etc. that make you just want to puke? Wouldn't the rules have to be pretty straight forward to discourage "getting around" the rules? Wouldn't an immediate firing squad for any infractions of corporate involvement discourage attempts to buy candidates? But would it stop this activity? Wouldn't this also be unconstitutional without due process? Aren't there draconian penalties in existance for corporate fraud? Are we seeing almost record amounts of corporate fraud in the headlines for the last couple of years? Were all that many global corporatists discouraged from "getting around" the rules and regulations?

Wouldn't the cost of living go down slightly to offset the tax increase because companies won't be free from prosecution for shenanagans and have to charge a free and fair price for their service?

Where is the connection between election regulations and the cost of living? I don't see even a remote connection, do you? Would a tax increase be necessary for what should be a $50 million expenditure (assuming 10 qualifying candidates at $5 million each) at most under a limited federal funding of the presidential election? With a $3.0 trillion spending budget, wouldn't $50 million be so inconsequential as to not even show up as a line item? Wouldn't we have to expand your program to all federal elections for House and Senate positions, seriously expanding the bureaucracy of the "Dept. of Federal Elections" (possible bureacracy name)? Could your proposal be the typical federal govt. response to all "problems" i.e. more govt., more cost, and more interference and regulation?

Why can't all elections be decided by something easy that is witnessed and easily verified? Wouldn't it be more satisfying, or at least less annoying to see elections settled by something like a fist fight, or an endurance race, or possibly a duel with single shot pistols? Aren't you tired of or maybe outraged with the whole "election" and campaign process in this country? Are you familiar with Paul Lyon's comments on the federal elections/campaign conventions? Don't you think he has some keen insight into the current state of affairs? Why are we debating here? Shouldn't we move this conversation to the 2004 elections, or are you committed to posting these questions here?

​

Is this relevant to the European Community Members?

 

[Unintentional]

Talk in questions.

Where in the EC or UK does Grayson live? In GB?

 

[CaryP]

Talk in questions.

Originally posted by Unintentional@Sep 7 2004, 07:22 AM
Where in the EC or UK does Grayson live? In GB?

​

Have you checked the member map?

 

[Grayson]

Talk in questions.

Can't he just ask me?

 

[CaryP]

Talk in questions.

Could it be, it never entered his mind?