Post by cereboso on Nov 26, 2011 15:21:10 GMT -6
PLEASE LET ME KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS.
A friend of mine argues that this will effectively allow only the rich/well known to run for office and effectively prohibit the poor from running.
The argument is that although unlikely, in today’s society, the poor/99% could theoretically form a party and raise money from all of the other 99%’ers and form a viable political party that would compete with the establishment GOP/Dems.
If donations were banned or limited to a small amount then the poor/unknown would have no way to get their name out there in order to obtain the public financing and it would only be rich people who ran that are already well known. That is assuming that there was a 99% Party behind them or some rare rich progressive who would donate money to them to get established and to run.
In that case the rich would be the only ones in office (like they are today), but instead of the possibility of being accountable to the public for fear of not being re-elected and a 99% Party candidate taking their place, the rich would only have to compete against other rich people for office and would not have any real motivation to represent the will and best interest of the public as a whole and still just help their rich buddies and give more tax breaks to themselves.
What are your thougts on this issue?
A friend of mine argues that this will effectively allow only the rich/well known to run for office and effectively prohibit the poor from running.
The argument is that although unlikely, in today’s society, the poor/99% could theoretically form a party and raise money from all of the other 99%’ers and form a viable political party that would compete with the establishment GOP/Dems.
If donations were banned or limited to a small amount then the poor/unknown would have no way to get their name out there in order to obtain the public financing and it would only be rich people who ran that are already well known. That is assuming that there was a 99% Party behind them or some rare rich progressive who would donate money to them to get established and to run.
In that case the rich would be the only ones in office (like they are today), but instead of the possibility of being accountable to the public for fear of not being re-elected and a 99% Party candidate taking their place, the rich would only have to compete against other rich people for office and would not have any real motivation to represent the will and best interest of the public as a whole and still just help their rich buddies and give more tax breaks to themselves.
What are your thougts on this issue?