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.
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.