November 9th, 2003

eye

(no subject)

critics are saying that dean's decision to forgo matching funds will damage campaign finance reforms. i say those reforms are irretrievably broken already by bush's ability to raise hundreds of millions from corporate interests. as long as spending limits and matching funds are optional, they are meaningless.
eye

dave's campaign finance reform proposal:

allow candidates to raise and spend as much money as they like in the primary process, but as soon as it is over, give them a set amount each of public funding and limit their spending to that amount.

winning the republican primary would probably take more money than winning the democratic, but republicans have more money. once candidates have won the support of their constituency, they should be on an equal footing financially.

public funding would be predicated on numbers of supporters. if you pass a certain threshold, you get it. it might work to have tiers of funding to facilitate the participation of smaller parties. the top two parties in terms of popular support get $20 million, for example, and the next two get $5 million, and the next two, $1 million.
eye

(no subject)

an alternative to the tiered method of financing:

for every voter who registers with a party affilliation, that party gets one dollar to spend in the general election.