Should political candidates be able to fund their own campaigns?

[Lenonis]

The Governor's race in Illinois pitted a rich businessman with no political experience against the incumbant. The winner (Rauner) put in almost $30 million of his own money into the race -- which is almost how much the loser (Quinn) raised in total. Given how close the race was (only 4% separated winner and loser) it is very likely that cash infusion in his campaign is what won him the race.

So...in essence, you had a rich politician essentially buy a governorship.

I don't want this to be about Dem or Rep, or just US focused. I think it's really just a fundamental question about campaigns...

The question is:

Should candidates for office be allowed to contribute their own personal money to their war chests?

My opinion:

No. It starts breaking the democratic process when someone floods a campaign with their own money. No one should be comfortable with a scenario where someone can buy a public office. People should be able to raise money on the merits of their stances and use that money to campaign with. They can use their own "resources" by hosting townhalls, debates, and stumping at locations. But not flooding their campaigns with cash. Plus this allowed a wider range of people to run for office. This whole "you have to be a millionaire to run for office" situation we have is just awful.

Curious what others think. Once again, please keep the partisan bashing to the other thread! This has nothing to do with political party or even country.

[americandavey]

So in your opinion, a person that did well for himself shouldn't GAMBLE his own money to fund his own campaign. But it is alright for someone to ask $3k(or more) a plate of other people's money, special interest groups to fund someone's campaign?

[Lenonis]

So in your opinion, a person that did well for himself shouldn't GAMBLE his own money to fund his own campaign. But it is alright for someone to ask $3k(or more) a plate of other people's money, special interest groups to fund someone's campaign?

Essentially correct. A candidate is relying on the people to get elected. It makes sense that he should then rely on people for the funding of his campaign.

Otherwise you have a system where only the rich can run -- and if you are in the top tier, you essentially can just buy your office.

I fail to see why people would think that's a desirable thing.

You can brag about your success and business accomplishments all you want. You just can't use that success to buy your way into office.

[Endus]

My opinion is that campaign financing should be standardized. If you want to contribute to the political system, you donate into the central fund. That central fund is then divided out equally to each candidate in the race. No other money is allowed to be used. PACs cannot exist. Any use of funds or resources to campaign for a candidate is considered bribery if not outright election fraud, and punished harshly (prison time/punitive fines/etc, so rich people can't just wave off the penalty).

Money is a corrupting influence in politics, pretty much regardless of the origin.

For those of you thinking "but I don't want my money to go to those OTHER guys, I just want my money to go to the guy who represents my interests", that is exactly what I mean by a corrupting influence.

[Kathandira]

I feel politicians should only be allowed to use their own money. Get rid of "donations". They end up just being bribes in the end.

[Theendgamelv3]

Essentially correct. A candidate is relying on the people to get elected. It makes sense that he should then rely on people for the funding of his campaign.

Otherwise you have a system where only the rich can run -- and if you are in the top tier, you essentially can just buy your office.

I fail to see why people would think that's a desirable thing.

You can brag about your success and business accomplishments all you want. You just can't use that success to buy your way into office.

Well do you have proof that the majority of the time when a rich candidate has run for an office they have won? You're bringing up one instance. I mean I do kinda agree with you without looking up the facts. However, if it turns out that being rich doesn't help you out, then I will disagree obviously.

[PACOX]

People respond to money. Many have tried to campaign without money and the vast majority have failed, no matter their platform or message. Politics is brutal and voters have to remember that they are part of the problem.

[Lenonis]

Well do you have proof that the majority of the time when a rich candidate has run for an office they have won?

I think it's not a stretch of the imagination given all of the research out there about how easily influenced people are with political ads that money buys votes. It's not going to make up a 20% gap, that's for sure, but it just seems painfully obvious that in a tight race often times the deciding factor is who spent more.

It's a combo of psycho 101 and historic patterns in elections.

- - - Updated - - -

My opinion is that campaign financing should be standardized.

I agree. Every candidate should have the same war chest, no more and no less. However that's going above and beyond my question, but would still be an interesting one to put out there. I'm not sure what a good counterargument to the standardization of campaign financing would be....

- - - Updated - - -

I feel politicians should only be allowed to use their own money.

So...you only think rich people should hold office?

[Blueobelisk]

I think having personal funds is just another resource of yours to get a leg over the opponent.

I think it becomes a problem if someone spams a smear campaign ad that the opponent really doesn't have the funds to refute/explain, but ultimately that's because there are idiot voters who accept what a commercial on TV says so...that's kind of the voters fault.

Constantly spending money to get your name out there and give out free T Shirts and stuff is fine though.

Yes, use anything you want to to win.

[Kujako]

No, they should ONLY be able to use public funds. These funds would be generated via tax returns, where every citizen registered to vote gets say 20$ to allocate to any one or more politicians they choose.

[Reeve]

My opinion is that campaign financing should be standardized. If you want to contribute to the political system, you donate into the central fund. That central fund is then divided out equally to each candidate in the race. No other money is allowed to be used. PACs cannot exist. Any use of funds or resources to campaign for a candidate is considered bribery if not outright election fraud, and punished harshly (prison time/punitive fines/etc, so rich people can't just wave off the penalty).

Money is a corrupting influence in politics, pretty much regardless of the origin.

For those of you thinking "but I don't want my money to go to those OTHER guys, I just want my money to go to the guy who represents my interests", that is exactly what I mean by a corrupting influence.

So how do you deal with press coverage? If CNN decides to spend 20 hours airtime talking about candidate A, but only 5 minutes airtime talking about candidate B, does that airtime (which has a cost) count as a political donation? What if the news organization speaks highly about one candidate and poorly about the other? What if the news organization has a clear and obvious bias? What if the news organization is owned by groups with clear political interests?

It seems to me that as long as it costs money to deliver a message, and as long as we want our press to be free, there's going to be money involved in politics.

[Raptor With a Saber]

Neither. They should get a base of 1m-5m dollars from tax payers and nothing more. No donations or anything.

[apepi]

I think all campaigns should be publicly funded only. There should be a fund that is built up in the state via tax, and that money evenly split between the parties running.

Cannot use your own money, cannot get money from corporations. All money comes from the local government and collaboration from the respective party orgs. (DNC/RNC, etc)

This, Wolf Pac!

[theostrichsays]

I don't think so, I like Endus's idea. That way all the bullshit we see on TV and in ads would be more foucsed on wtf they planned on doing rather then discrediting their opponent.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Where's the "No, and neither should they be allowed to receive donations." option?

[Elegiac]

No. They should draw it from a public fund instead - no donations, no self funding.

[THE Bigzoman]

If it's solely his money, I don't give a shit because I figure it's better then corporate backers.

[Gumboy]

The blatant amount of money being spent on campaigns these days, on both sides, is sickening. That money could actually go to something good

[Grimbold21]

Dunno if this pertains to topic at hand, but here in my country there's something which i find to be wrong

Take a general election aka electing the party which will govern the country, but this applies to all parties that run on the election. Each vote they get means they receive 2 or 3 euros for it. Multiply that by a few million and you got quite the sum.

Personally, i find that ridiculous and reckon that a party should find their own ways of obtaining funding.