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

Increasing the likelihood of voter fraud should be a concern for every legal voting citizen of the US.

 

Can't have republicans cheating like in North Carolina and Georgia can we?

 

You mean like in California. Interesting you left that out.

But to the point, attempting to codify the means to engage in voter fraud, and opening the flood gates to hacking and all sorts of problems that have been identified in the past makes no sense.

For the People Act my ass.

For the New Democratic Party and Unknown People We Want Votes From Act is more like it.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So you want to scrap the 1st Amendment?

 

You mean make them beholding to the government officials doling out the campaign money instead of the people? Wow what a plan.

 

What liberals want is overwhelming political power so that every election is just a rubberstamp of the democrat party

 

No question in my mind. They've gone way past the arena of ideas. Now it's erase the enemy by any means possible.

How did we get to this point, and why did we let so few people accomplish it?

 

What prevents me from spending $10MM of my own money buying billboards and TV ads supporting my preferred candidate?

 

I dont know

There are many on the left you are not well adjusted people

If they were given all their demands they would still be unhappy creatures

 

You intentionally edited out the portion of my post that explained the new incentive process.

So stick with that one instead of substituting a ****ing fail of an argument because the government officials in that situation would have zero influence over the distribution of the money.

 

Who decides how the money is allocated and how much? Government officials.

 

I said that a candidate is limited to spending $1 per voter in his district of his own money. He gets $1 from the fed per voter and is allowed to raise $575,000 (or equal to $1 per resident.) Senate the same $1 per resident as a statewide race for senate in a state such as Fl, Texas, Cal, NY costs a lot more than Delaware, Rhode Island, or Wyoming.

That would be a paid by add, and would be limited to a position and not a candidate. The Catholic Church can still put up billboards with a right to life message. You can buy a billboard with a boycott Iran message, you can list the republican platform and just can't say vote republican with your "paid by" That is free speech. Now trade unions and for profit corporations will not be allowed to do so. They will still be able to buy adds that say coal is good for the country and support your teachers. It is transparency.

 

which we elect- we are a democratic republic you know.

 

Might you also make the same argument about giving any right over to government officials? We elect government officials in democratic republics, why not let them determine what speech is acceptable, or what religion we can adhere to?

 

No, it is the ability of them to pass a law giving every person the exact same benefit. The nation already has passed laws on campaign finance and limiting contributions to campaigns, without violating the constitution. .

 

Okay, so what's the point then if they just air independent ads and the tit for tat is moved back a step? What exactly is the difference between giving $1mil to a campaign fund which then airs ads, or airing $1mil of ads directly? The politician still gets the benefit, and they know who did it for them. They know it might not happen again next time around unless they toe the line.

Look at the nations with repressive campaign finance laws, they all still have the same issues the US does. The problem is unsolvable without serious repression of the kind most aren't willing to resort to.

 

I explicitly outlined the proposal. Try reading.

Every citizen would get 100 to spend in 4 $25 increments.

 

So they decide how much and who decides who it can be spent on? Anyone who simply declares they are running. Geez I could declare and just get some of my friends to put me on their list and get a couple of grand. And where does the money come from anyway? The last election I voted in had I think 20 offices open so I get $2000 to spend or I have can only donate to a maximum of 4 of my candidates?

 

No, you made have a democratic election in your state but we are a federal republic.

 

Maximum of four candidates. And nothing stops you - now - from getting money from your friends to run for political office. If anything, the current process would grant you exponentially more freedom to make that money.

 

Well yes it does, it's THEIR money, you're talking about free government money they can have sent to me simply because I announce I am running. And what if there are six candidates I support and want elected.
And of course there are people who do not have money to donate but have time to donate while people with a lot of money and are running businesses don't have that time so they spend money. Are you going to limit how much time a person can spend working with a campaign? Time is money you know.

 

No and therein would lie the incentive (or one of them) for candidates to still pursue and build enthusasm from supporters.

But their financial incentive to appeal disproportionately to the very small segment of the population that donates the most money would instead be altered to try and get financial donations from as big a population as possible.

 

Well if they don't appeal to the voters they are not going to get elected and you are giving an advantage to less successful people over more successful people why should that be?

 

Given your lack of specific reference to any provisions from the bill, I have to conclude that you are just seeing what you wanted to see.

 

You either lack reading comprehension or really want to push this strawman nonsense.

That policy does not provide an advantage for "less successful people." It equalizes the funding opportunities between young, old, men, women, black, white, poor, and rich alike.

And as I said, the need for money forces politicians to disproportionately focus their policies on the wealthy. They have still have to appeal enough to win the election, but if they can win by lying to the public and telling the truth to the wealthy donors, then they will win the election regardless and they can deal with the implications of voting opposite of what they said they would do when (if) they run for re-election.