Campaign Finance Idea - You Can't Use Your Own Money

[ReaPsTA]

This is a purely hypothetical idea.  I don't know if this could actually work or not.

What if you couldn't use your own money to finance your political campaign?  This removes a major point of leverage that the rich have when running for office.  Everybody would have to rely on convincing donors to help them out, rather than simply being able to run for office because they are rich.

EDIT:  I should have put this in here for context.  This would be part of a broader campaign finance reform plan.

ONLY individuals can donate to political causes.  No corporations or PACs or whatever.  Individuals have a hard yearly limit on their spending that they can use however they want.  They could donate all their money to one candidate, or spread it around to multiple candidates or political groups.  The hard limit should be set at a few thousand dollars and adjusted based on what's best for the country.  No business/political entity or person acting in the interests of one is legally allowed to ask about your political donations to prevent tampering.

[El Barto]

That just means that people would have to rely even further on corporate money.  I don't consider that an improvement at all.  The only real solution is that people can't use anybody's money to run for office.  Wouldn't actually even be that difficult nowadays, and I think we'd all appreciate seeing an end to stupid and interminable attack ads, which is the where all that money actually goes anyway. 

[Nick]

Yeah, not saying I got a great plan, but the OP idea would get us nowhere better I feel.

[ReaPsTA]

That just means that people would have to rely even further on corporate money.  I don't consider that an improvement at all.  The only real solution is that people can't use anybody's money to run for office.  Wouldn't actually even be that difficult nowadays, and I think we'd all appreciate seeing an end to stupid and interminable attack ads, which is the where all that money actually goes anyway.

Added this to main post:

ONLY individuals can donate to political causes.  No corporations or PACs or whatever.  Individuals have a hard yearly limit on their spending that they can use however they want.  They could donate all their money to one candidate, or spread it around to multiple candidates or political groups.  The hard limit should be set at a few thousand dollars and adjusted based on what's best for the country.  No business/political entity or person acting in the interests of one is legally allowed to ask about your political donations to prevent tampering.

Now how does the idea sound?

[Scheavo]

If there was a hard cap on contributions, I don't see how it would matter if you could use your own money. If you're rich, and you can only use $2,000 anyways, I'm not that concerned.

Plus, is there any way to prevent rich person B giving to rich person A, and then rich person A making a loan to rich person B?

[senecadawg2]

I don't know how helpful this would actually be... Sure, Romney would lose out own a lot of finances from his own bank, but he also has some insanely wealthy buddies. I realize its not that simple, but...

not saying I got a great plan, but the OP idea would get us nowhere better I feel.

[TL]

Typically, the reason you see so many people with money running is that they can afford to not have personal income while they're campaigning. Not because they all contribute a ton of money to their own campaigns.

[lordxizor]

Typically, the reason you see so many people with money running is that they can afford to not have personal income while they're campaigning. Not because they all contribute a ton of money to their own campaigns.

This is true. Most politicians at the national level don't put much of their own money into their campaigns.

[Nick]

That just means that people would have to rely even further on corporate money.  I don't consider that an improvement at all.  The only real solution is that people can't use anybody's money to run for office.  Wouldn't actually even be that difficult nowadays, and I think we'd all appreciate seeing an end to stupid and interminable attack ads, which is the where all that money actually goes anyway.

Added this to main post:

ONLY individuals can donate to political causes.  No corporations or PACs or whatever.  Individuals have a hard yearly limit on their spending that they can use however they want.  They could donate all their money to one candidate, or spread it around to multiple candidates or political groups.  The hard limit should be set at a few thousand dollars and adjusted based on what's best for the country.  No business/political entity or person acting in the interests of one is legally allowed to ask about your political donations to prevent tampering.

Now how does the idea sound?

Plus, is there any way to prevent rich person B giving to rich person A, and then rich person A making a loan to rich person B?

Bingo. If I were rich and really cared about a candidate or party, I'd just give the money to any friend who agreed with me and was willing to donate. Sure, it would be a pain in the ass and thus cut down spending a bit, but only marginally.

[the Catfishman]

In the recent France election all candidates had equal time in the media (as in..counted in seconds) which seemed kinda harsh but really makes the campaign focussed and less about just throwing money at it.

[XJDenton]

The campaigns themselves should have a limited budget by law. It can be a test of responsible budgeting, which given the size of the deficit can't be a bad thing.

[Super Dude]

That just means that people would have to rely even further on corporate money.  I don't consider that an improvement at all.  The only real solution is that people can't use anybody's money to run for office.  Wouldn't actually even be that difficult nowadays, and I think we'd all appreciate seeing an end to stupid and interminable attack ads, which is the where all that money actually goes anyway.

I agree with all of this. Arguably, one of the reasons Obama was able to get so many young voters out to the polls in '08 was because he had a massive online presence.

[igotrhythm]

I don't care about campaign finance reform because I feel if you're dumb enough to be influenced by a campaign, that's your fault.

[lordxizor]

I read a very compelling arguement a while back for why elections should be publically funded with no private money being able to be used. The playing fields would be equal, plus politicians would no longer feel that they needed to repay those who contributed to their campaigns cutting down big time on corruption. The trick would be deciding how much money everyone would get and who would get it.

[TL]

The campaigns themselves should have a limited budget by law. It can be a test of responsible budgeting, which given the size of the deficit can't be a bad thing.

Technically, we have that rule here in Canada.
However, the penalties aren't exactly much of a deterrent. The Conservatives violated the spending limits to the point of receiving fines, and the RCMP raiding their party headquarters. They continued to win elections, continued violating spending limits, and currently have a majority in parliament.

Now if there were a spending limit and an effective deterrent, I would definitely be on board with that.

[Scheavo]

I don't care about campaign finance reform because I feel if you're dumb enough to be influenced by a campaign, that's your fault.

So, its also my fault when someone else is stupid enough to be influenced by a campaign?

[rumborak]

In the recent France election all candidates had equal time in the media (as in..counted in seconds) which seemed kinda harsh but really makes the campaign focussed and less about just throwing money at it.

Same in Germany. During election time TV stations are required to air ads for each of the involved parties, each party getting the same time.

rumborak

[King Postwhore]

In the recent France election all candidates had equal time in the media (as in..counted in seconds) which seemed kinda harsh but really makes the campaign focussed and less about just throwing money at it.

Same in Germany. During election time TV stations are required to air ads for each of the involved parties, each party getting the same time.

rumborak

I like this a lot.

[the Catfishman]

In the recent France election all candidates had equal time in the media (as in..counted in seconds) which seemed kinda harsh but really makes the campaign focussed and less about just throwing money at it.

Same in Germany. During election time TV stations are required to air ads for each of the involved parties, each party getting the same time.

rumborak

Actually... it's the same here, but only on the (state funded) public channels.

[kirbywelch92]

Have a guy named Victor Mendoza that lives here in my hometown. He was a school teacher that ran for a senate seat under the Clinton Administration. He got in a beat up truck and drove nearly all through Texas, literally going door to door to personally achieve their votes. He almost won too, but unfortunately the publicity just wasn't all there. To me that's how a campaign should be run, shows that the candidate actually cares anything about being elected.

[ReaPsTA]

In the recent France election all candidates had equal time in the media (as in..counted in seconds) which seemed kinda harsh but really makes the campaign focussed and less about just throwing money at it.

Same in Germany. During election time TV stations are required to air ads for each of the involved parties, each party getting the same time.

rumborak

This sounds nice, but creates the problem of marginalizing third parties.  Who determines whether or not the libertarian or green parties deserve TV time?  And based on what standards?

Also, doesn't regulating political TV time create huge first amendment issues?  Should we just not care?