Here is a New Ad based on H.R. 1

Tells it like it is.

 

I wonder if anyone has actually read HR 1 to learn what a preposterous load of BS it contains.

For those interested:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text#toc-HBC413CF6518C43DAA8C0470161201FAB

 

There should be public funding for all federal campaigns. I rather they get the money from where I know it is coming from. I want to stop all corporate and union contributions to campaigns and parties. You get a dollar for every person in your district. You can only get matching funding from private sources And allow the use of your own funds at the same $1 per resident. . This gives every congressmen 2.5 mill each. Now this gives incumbents a leg up so I would stop their mail privileges 6 months before the election. Then add term limits.

This parody ad you show just says, hey you should like it the way it is now. Corporate and union funding of campaigns has to stop.

 

Either the Yahoo in the commercial didn't read the bill, has a severe reading comprehension issue, or is simply misleading his constituents. What part of the bill is he referencing? The modification of the requirements of the 1986 law (9006) on matching funds in Federal elections?

What sections of the bill do you disagree with?

 

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

Why is that, Spooky ?

 

You say you want to know where their money is coming from but you don't know anything more about that guy down the street than the corporation giving money.

You are implying that guy down the street somehow has good intentions and the corporations are evil when there are many, many good corporations out there.

Then you say to set the amount of money a campaign can have but what happens when liberal media starts charging republicans 3x the amount to run an ad simply to run them out of money?

Like I said it's a dumb idea.

 

There is a significant difference between permitting everyone to donate an equal amount of money and permitting some individuals/corporations to donate unlimited amounts while also obscuring their identities.

The "liberal media" would be sued in your hypothetical and forced to alter their behavior.

 

And what difference would that be?

And for the record, corporations cannot donate unlimited amounts of money to any campaign.

lol

 

I am a very big fan of the "Government allots a set amount of money to each citizen for them to distribute to their preferred candidate" idea. The proposal I have seen was something along the lines of giving everyone $100 in four 25$ allotments that they can distribute however they prefer to one-four candidates. It forces every politician to suddenly respect and apply for the money/vote from every citizen, as opposed to encouraging the candidates to focus their efforts on the top 0.5% of donors who provide the 80%+ of donations.

 

Consider the alterations to the incentives for politicians.

Currently, under a system where corporations and individuals can donate unlimited amounts, the politicians have every reason to focus their efforts on fundraising and appealing that very limited population. In a system where every citizen has an equal opportunity (at least in terms of money donations) to fund a campaign, the politicians now have an incentive to appeal to a much, much broader (a majority, hopefully) segment of the population.

 

I have and the video along with all the ignorant retorts shows how hollow brains squirm like a animal hit by a car.

 

Sure they can to a PAC.

 

What BS did you find in this bill?

 

I am curious why you think money wins you elections when there are so many cases to prove you wrong.

 

PAC's aren't allowed to donate to a campaign.

Do you seriously not understand how any of this works?

Wow

 

Yes, they most assuredly can donate unlimited amounts through Super PACs. Unless you are trying to argue the semantics of "unlimited."

 

Don't get yer panties in a wad-
In the United States and Canada, a political action committee is a 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation..ahem...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

 

PACs need to die.....

 

...what makes you believe that?

 

Super Pacs can accept unlimited amounts of money but they are not allowed to give it to a campaign.

Wow you guys are ignorant.

https://ballotpedia.org/PACs_and_Super_PACs

 

Dark money needs to die....legislature members should be able to get zero dollars from lobbyist as gifts....

 

I never used the word Super Pac..

 

They can't do either and I'm not arguing it because its the law.

 

You will notice that I did not say that money wins you elections (although it absolutely does make your chances of winning much, much more likely).

I said that the need for money incentivizes politicians to alter their behavior so that they are more appealing to the small segment of the population that donates the most money.