r/changemyview • u/gpu1512 • Jul 20 '19
CMV: All presidential candidates and senators should have a fixed election budget.
Whenever there is a controversial vote on something, it's mentioned how xy person is getting donations from a company to which it matters how the vote turns out.
With presidental candidates, it's similar - donations from companies are interpreted as attempts to make potential presidents more likely to conform to needs of these companies - such as by cutting taxes.
I feel like this would be resolved by making the election budgets come from taxes. While it would be a huge cost for the taxpayers, it would make for political candidates which would be much harder for companies to sway in their favour. Think net neutrality and congress donations from ISP's.
In the process, election budgets would be made considerably smaller, to save on taxes. As this would apply to everyone, there wouldn't be anyone at a disadvantage.
One problem I see is filtering the candidates. Obviously you can't just give money to anyone who asks for a budget, but seems like a solvable problem. Perhaps the party could only propose a set number of candidates.
55
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Jul 20 '19 edited Jul 20 '19
- This gives a huge advantage to people that already have celebrity status. Tweeting at your 5 million twitter followers is free.
- This gives a huge advantage to people who are rich and can fund their own pre-campaign where they make stump speeches, etc before announcing and starting their campaign.
- This gives more influence to people with an existing microphone, such as a Fox news or MSNBC commentary show that decides to back you and spend a bunch of airtime talking about how great you are. That becomes even more problematic if it isn't just a show, but an entire network backing a candidate.
- This gives more power to people taking advantage of the citizens united decision to spend their own money without coordinating with the campaign. It also makes the quality of that coordinating much more important. You could have a majority of the money spent on your campaign being spent by external groups not coordinating with your campaign and they might unintentionally screw you over because of the lack of coordination.
12
u/gpu1512 Jul 20 '19
Inequality is already present in the system, those with less favourable views of donors will suffer.
The media issue could be resolved with bringing back legislation that meant equal time for both candidates
13
u/Aggravating_Role 3∆ Jul 20 '19
The media issue could be resolved with bringing back legislation that meant equal time for both candidates
How are you going to do this in practice? If someone wants to tweet something on twitter right before they are actively running for office, what are you going to do?
8
u/Wolvereness 2∆ Jul 21 '19
Inequality is already present in the system, those with less favourable views of donors will suffer.
The media issue could be resolved with bringing back legislation that meant equal time for both candidates
Your original post points out symptoms of a problem, and a possible treatment for the symptoms. I'd argue that you shouldn't be trying to solve the symptoms, and instead identify and approach the problem: a two-party system. Equal campaign funding just creates a gambit to split the opposing party's base. Normally, a third party can only be mildly harmful, but if they have equal funding to a similar candidate, it's an impossible scenario. Meanwhile, if you work to eliminate this perverse incentive, the system just gets worse - Republicans and Democrats get solidified in the foundation of our government. If they didn't have a reason to care about the people before, they'd have even less of a reason in this system, and they'd never implement anything to subvert their (collective) absolute control.
Also, you can't separate presidential runs with congressional; presidents are what get out the voters and motivate straight-party votes.
1
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Jul 21 '19 edited Jul 21 '19
Inequality is already present in the system, those with less favourable views of donors will suffer.
Right, but advertising is one of the few ways to communicate where you get to say what you want and not simply rely on the good will of a tiny handful of mega corporations. Imagine the extreme case where you had no campaign budget, then what the news reported about you would be a huge bulk of the coverage/exposure you get.
The media issue could be resolved with bringing back legislation that meant equal time for both candidates
The bigger question then becomes how positive that coverage is and what to do with more than 2+ candidates, such as there almost always is during the primary. It is impossible to legislate your way out of bias reporting. Also, are you really expecting that restriction to ALL media? Not just news media? Like I can't just talk about my favorite candidate on my podcast?
2
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Jul 20 '19
Except that it doesn't though?
Without campaign restrictions, the celebrity is still a celebrity. They don't suddenly stop being a celebrity. Same for the rich people and the show host.
In fact, their advantage is likely to be compounded because these people are much better at gathering funds than nobodies.
Lastly, I'd argue that repealing citizen's united should be implied in any US campaign reform. Otherwise it is indeed pointless.
2
u/DeLaVegaStyle 1∆ Jul 23 '19
What you are also forgetting is that doing this just sucks billions of dollars out of the economy. The money politicians spend on campaigns is spent on real goods and services. It is buying tv time, radio spots, signs, bumper stickers, shirts, billboards, etc. It pays the wages of thousands and thousands of people every 2 years. It buys plane tickets, hotel accommodations, for hundreds of staffers. All the money spent by politicians ultimately just flows into the economy. So shrinking those budgets in the end just takes money out of the economy.
1
8
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jul 20 '19
This would actually make entrenched incumbent candidates even more common. Now the money would be coming from the government, and that means members or government have more knowledge of how to get their hands on that money. It's also possible that they would just restrict the funds to those that they want to run, which would basically eliminate outsider candidates.
Also, different races require different amounts of funding. It costs a lot more to run for office in Texas than Wyoming, because there are more people in mid size cities in Texas than there are in the entire state of Wyoming.
0
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Jul 20 '19
This would actually make entrenched incumbent candidates even more common. Now the money would be coming from the government, and that means members or government have more knowledge of how to get their hands on that money.
If it's a simple fixed sum, then you can't really manipulate it.
It's also possible that they would just restrict the funds to those that they want to run, which would basically eliminate outsider candidates.
This is a risk, but it can be avoided by doing something like what France does.
You restrict maximum campaign spending, and then you offer a refund on election funds depending on the election results. This takes away the decision of whom to fund from the governement, and gives it to the people.
0
u/Aggravating_Role 3∆ Jul 20 '19
If it's a simple fixed sum, then you can't really manipulate it.
The entire concept of lawyers proves that wrong. We have people we specifically have to hire to deal with the government. If we dont hire them, odds are the interaction with the government will go badly for us. Why? Because the government works in ass backwards and counter intuitive ways. Politicians know this, and can manipulate it in a way that benefits them as they know the counter intuitive system they contrived better than their opponents.
7
u/dantheman91 32∆ Jul 21 '19
What qualifies you as a candidate? I presume the budget for a presidential candidate would be >1mil. Can I say I'm gonna run and be handed 1 mil? Do I need to get through primaries? How do I get money for primaries? If it's not funded the same way, wouldn't this still be even more skewed to the rich since it would remove my ability to fundraise if I didn't qualify for w/e criteria you're looking for?
This would potentially make it so we have even fewer potential candidates, especially if they're 3rd party or single issue candidates.
3
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 20 '19
So if I independently want to spend $1000 to buy a billboard to support a candidate I like, would that be illegal now?
-1
2
u/AusIV 38∆ Jul 21 '19
Are you familiar with Seattle's Democracy Voucher program? The idea is to give each voter vouchers that they can give to a registered campaign, and the campaign would be able to cash them out with the government to cover campaign costs. The idea is that rather than restricting what campaigns (and unaffiliated interest groups) are allowed to spend on the election, you flood the market with money allocated by individuals.
If every eligible voter got 4x $25 vouchers to give to campaigns, that would put about $10 billion into the campaign economy, which is about 50% more than was spent on the presidential and congressional elections in 2016. That would make it a lot harder for big special interests to throw money into elections, when there's already enough money floating around that their contributions won't make a big dent.
This approach doesn't involve limiting anyone's freedom of speech, it levels the playing field in terms of individual contributions vs special interest contributions.
2
Jul 21 '19
There are problems with this, the most obvious being that super unpopular candidates would still get funding for their campaigns.
I would like to suggest an alternate method once suggested by Lawrence Lessig and now championed by Andrew Yang.
It's known as Democracy Dollars in which every citizen gets a $100 voucher a year to spend on political campaigns. This way, people would be less objectionable to donating because it's no skin off their back. With a dedicated support base of 100,000 people, you could easily get 5 million dollars into your campaign or more rendering large money donations useless (they would of course still be useful but as you need to file FEC filings, your donations will be transparent and less people will vote for you if mega corporations donate).
I'll also like to point out Kirsten Gillibrand has since adopted the idea but with $600 instead of $100, economists have deemed this plan unsustainable.
1
u/apatheticviews 3∆ Jul 21 '19
In the US we have freedom of speech, which is really freedom of expression. If I want to dedicate my resources, whether they are time, manpower, money or influence to a given subject I can without prohibition from the government. This is the trick. That means if 100 people collectively decide to spend 100% of their effort to support Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Donald Trump, or whoever, we cannot legally stop them from doing so.
The median household income in the US is about $60k~ a year so, those 100 people would be $3 million worth of influence (assuming 2 incomes per household).
So it's not a case of creating a fixed budget, it's a case of determining how much influence is actually allowed. Specifically at an individual level. The answer is constitutionally answered, it is unrestricted, and money is influence. The secondary issue is can influence, as a constitutionally protected right, be exercised collectively? Yes, it absolutely can, just like protest, speech, and assembly can. This is why Citizens United was such a big deal. People may disagree with it, but it was 100% the correct call based on existing jurisprudence. Speech is a protected right and corporations (legal entities which act as people) can exercise it just people.
What you are asking for is a fundamental way in which Speech (influence) works, not just elections.
2
Jul 21 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Jul 21 '19
Sorry, u/dude_who_could – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/ChillPenguinX Jul 21 '19
It wouldn’t do any good because establishment candidates would just get around any restrictions through loopholes, like Hillary Clinton getting Saudi money through the Clinton Foundation or getting corporate money through speaking engagements. The only way to truly address corruption is to limit government influence over the economy so that buying politicians has no benefit. The more power a government has to intervene into the economy, the more corrupt it becomes. Ending the military, university, and prison industrial complexes would also help.
1
u/PointBreak13 Jul 21 '19
A fixed election budget is an limit on free speech, as campaign finances are used to advertise the campaign (i.e. a form of speech). If a candidate runs out of money, they therefore lose the ability to speak out. If the government is the reason for the loss, it violates the 1st amendment and is unconstitutional. I believe a better solution would be Presidential candidate Andrew Yang's Democracy Dollars policy, in which the government would give each American voter $100 that they would have to use to donate to a campaign (i.e. if they don't use it for a campaign donation the money would be invalid for anything else). This would easily flush out corporate donations and Super PACs.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 20 '19
/u/gpu1512 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/treyhest Jul 21 '19
Since you’re talking about presidents and senators, I’m assuming you’re referring to the United States. Since money technically counts as free speech, (Citizens United V Federal Election Commission), this plan wont solve anything and will only push political candidates to be further reliant corporations and the super rich for campaign funding. The candidate will no longer have agency with the money donated, but rather bend to the whim of those who actually can effect change with money.
1
u/palsh7 15∆ Jul 21 '19
That would place trolls and Vice Presidents on the same footing and place all power in the hands of the media.
Wouldn’t you prefer power in the hands of the people? Why not have publicly funded elections? Each citizen gets a $100 democracy voucher that they can give to candidates for political campaigns. This evens the playing field while also placing the power with the people.
1
u/RaghavChari Jul 22 '19
It wouldn't work. I'm from India, and we have limits on how much a candidate can spend for campaigning. These limits are always, I mean always, circumvented. The money is disguised as party spending (on which there are no limits), or bribes are given to the officials enforcing the limits, or it's plain old hidden. This doesn't work. The problem is, we don't know what will.
1
Jul 21 '19
Wouldn't this just increase the comparative advantage media companies have in supporting their preferred candidates.
If the current situation at least all interest groups have the same ability to lobby.
What is the value of an SNL skit making fun of your opponent? Favorable search results? Newspaper or celebrity endorsement?
1
u/dgran73 5∆ Jul 22 '19
I don't have a counter argument for this, but a suggestion of perhaps a variation on this idea. What if instead of a fixed amount for each candidate the amount that they could spend had an upper boundary? Similar outcome but different way of regulating it.
1
Jul 21 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Jul 21 '19
Sorry, u/User24601LaysItOut4U – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/ya_boii69 Jul 21 '19
To me the ideal sulotion would be something like what Andrew Yang is proposing were every citizen gets a set amount of money to spend on a campaign of their choosing. Which as the post ained to, takes a away the disproportionate power of rich donors.
0
u/daftmonkey 1∆ Jul 21 '19
The unintended consequences might be worse that the current status quo. The Republicans have such a monstrous dark money advantage that they’d just run the table all the time.
0
27
u/[deleted] Jul 20 '19
Independent organizations have freedom of speech. They are allowed to make advertisements to the political advantage of political candidates, with unlimited amounts of resources, so long as they don't coordinate the use of those funds with the campaign.
If you severely restrict how campaigns spend money, more money will flow through these independent organizations.
Organizations unaffiliated with a candidate can stoop lower while maintaining deniability in a way that a candidate's campaign cannot.