Quote:You might be onto something with the Citizens United, it certainly hasn't had the effect I believe it was intended to have (or at least how it was sold). I'm not knowledgeable enough really on the Citizens United case to have a solid opinion but seeing the effects of it (more powerful corporations) leads me to believe it's misguided at best.

 

On the other hand public funded campaigns to me sounds just as bad if not worse, but we both agree there needs to be some kind of campaign reform or control. I default to my solution for almost everything, make it smaller. Less power there's less reason for the corporations to invest in politicians.

 

 

Quote:Not a fan of publicly funded elections. 


I think part of money raised by candidates for a presidential election should go toward paying down the deficit (I'm sure that's not a popular thing).  Corporate influence should also be removed from politics (because corporations do not have the interests of people in mind, only profits).  


We also need to move away from the two party system, though that has little to do with campaign finance reform.

that's kind of the problem though. If you allow money in an argument can and will be made that there should be no limits on it. I think most reasonable people would agree that it should be the case. That's why a lot of people are calling for publicly funded elections. It would accomplish several things. No more money for votes corruption. No need to start hounding the donors for campaign money so early allowing more time to actually do the job.

 

It might not be perfect but I think it's a better option than what he have now by far. 

---