Slog Comments


Comments (8) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Matt the Engineer 1
My one fear about this is: you generally subsidize what you want more of, penalize what you want less of. I do not want more political ads and flyers.

But I'm not a fundamentalist on this point, and I'm sure the devil's in the details. The debate should be interesting.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on February 11, 2013 at 12:04 PM · Report this
I'd rather have publicly funded elections than term limits.
Posted by LMcGuff on February 11, 2013 at 12:16 PM · Report this
Wouldn't a District system go further to reduce campaign expenses for City Council candidates?
Posted by Zander on February 11, 2013 at 12:23 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 4
The problem I have with this is taxpayers paying t.v. networks for ads. T.V. stations are the major beneficiaries of political adverts. And I doubt they would willingly cede that money.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on February 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM · Report this
Everybody knows that candidates are beholden to the folks who pay for their campaigns.

Wouldn't it be nice for that to be ordinary taxpayers?
Posted by Kazrak on February 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM · Report this
Wouldn't it be nice if they were beholden to the voters? Again this points to Districts where each vote would matter more and grassroots person to person politics could flourish ?
Posted by Zander on February 11, 2013 at 2:35 PM · Report this
orino 7
In the U.K., television campaign ads are prohibited, and newspapers are required to *give* equal amounts of space to candidates for elective office. I like that idea a lot better.
Posted by orino on February 11, 2013 at 2:51 PM · Report this
Geni 8
We need the Fairness Doctrine back, and we need to outlaw paid political ads. Candidates should get equal publicly-financed airtime for debates and position statements. No advertising. Period.

I ran for office a few years ago, and the whole process disillusioned me quite thoroughly. You're expected to spend 90% of your time dialing for dollars - calling people and asking them for money, or going to endorsement interviews with various special-interest groups so they'll give you money. If you don't raise "serious" money, you're not regarded as a "serious" candidate (that's one of the unexpectedly adverse results of the Public Disclosure Committee - everyone can see what every candidate has raised, from where, and where it's been spent, which is great, but it also turns the whole goddam thing into a "who has more cash" horserace).

Public campaign financing and the return of the Fairness Doctrine would do more to reform politics in this country than all the vitriolic Internet rhetoric and speechifying and sign-waving and poll-fixing combined.
Posted by Geni on February 11, 2013 at 4:06 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.