What do you think about :"having a cap on how much can be spend by parties on elections campaigns?"?
952457
The idea is a good one, and tries to tackle a real problem. Unfortunately, pragmatically speaking, a cap on election spending is pretty unworkable. There are so many ways around it that money will always manage to work its way through such rules.\n\nConsider the fact that there are ALREADY limits on how much you can spend if you want matched federal funding. Candidates simply ditch federal funding because they can raise more on their own. There are limits on how much individual donors can give, but donations routinely pass these limits.\n\nA more plausible solution is federally funded voter education campaigns. The government supplies campaign money to candidates, and all other campaign spending is done away with. This institutes a spending cap in a much more reliable way. There is no grey area for campaign finance to slip through the cracks, it's simply all gone except for federal money. Federal supervision might also clean up campaigns a little, focus on issues. A nice fringe benefit.
1087481
Why not, politics is basically a popularity contest anyway... would be nice to see them have to work at what they 'choose to do'.
574195
No, I'm not satisfied. But, there are other countries with multiple party systems(take Italy, for example). Those governments are very inefficient because there are way too many competitive blocs. This leads to coalitions that work towards each party's benefit. Not that great either, now is it?
886081
Right. Only Republicans take lobby money. Where do you get your ideas?\n\nWho are some of the biggest spenders? MADD, PETA, ACORN, etc. The Dems have both hands deep in the cookie jar. Please stop playing the self-righteous card. We're on to you.\n\n.
847622
remember all the promises ALL politions make?  how many are ever accomplished?\n\nall politicians have to say what you want to hear to get elected.  this isnt a novel concept, its politics.
977790
It should be above bare subsistence, and then indexed to inflation. Then politicians would not have to seek increases every few years, and it would not matter which party was in power; people in covered jobs would have a living wage.
897403
We have the best government money can buy.\n\nIt has been estimated that the combined total of money spent by the Republicans and Democrats for the 2006 election campaign is $2.6 billion.\n\nThe majority of this money comes from corporate interests that expect to get paid back in governmental favors. This is nothing more than legalized bribery.\n\nThat is not even addressing the problem with the lobbyists.
714833
The problem is systemic and it really doesn't matter which party is in charge.  Suppose you had a Republican alcoholic and a Demorat alcoholic.  Regardless of their political philosophy, each cannot control his intake of alcohol.  Analalgously, our fiscal system is like a liquor store; politicians of whichever party cannot control themselves when they get to spend other people's money.
880838
I doubt it.  They have better things to spend their money on than trying to convince people who have already made up their minds. There is one thing most of us have in common here; we are opinionated.
856819
Please pay attention.  The whole propaganda exercise has been to persuade the electorate to accept the idea of state funding for political parties.  By introducing a law in which donors must declare themselves to public view, many have backed off.  All three major political parties in UK have heavy debts in the millions.  These scheming politicians want us to pay off their debts and go on paying into their party funds from out taxes.  Not only will our council tax bills get even bigger so too will other taxes.  You can see already how politicians behave with our money - check out the spiralling out of control cost of the Olympics in London 2012 - now three times the original budget and rising.  The same increases will be applied to state funding of political parties.\n\nVOTE NO!
767626
For a $50 donation, I'll give you the answer you'd like to hear.\n\nSeriously, campaigns are very expensive and candidates spend a huge amount of time fundraising for their next campaign. As a result, significant donors don't necessarily buy more 'influence' but they do tend to get more access to politicians to lobby for their interests.\n\nI would argue that it's not inherently dirty but it does seem to give the wealthy an unfair advantage.
972847
actually, they won't cut a whole lot... unless they cut spending for the war.  their campaign was one of "create more social programs to spend the extra money that we will be taxing"
245804
I don't think we get more opinions in such a situation, on the contrary even with an administration that welcomes debate, not the case today, input from different minded people stimulates more thought. \n(Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's new book "A Team of Rivals" details Lincoln's success at bringing opposing ideas to the table. It's a great read)\n\nCertainly our experience in the last five years should make us ponder this.  Until a month ago this Congress was so reluctant to voice any disagreement, which seems to stem from fear, intimidation and bribery.   "Don't vote with us and we'll fund and support primary opponents" does not encourage a free exchange of ideas.  Bills are held forever for arm twisting. Votes change. The next appropriations bill has bridges to nowhere, and outrageous spending for community centers. This happened in the past, but never in my lifetime to such an extent.  The national debt and the instances of "earmarks", formerly "pork",  are outrageous.\n\n"Quicker" means more deceit. \nThis week a Republican representative on C-SPAN was telling about voluminous bills being placed on desks in the middle of the night to be voted on the next day with absolutely no time for review. \n\nWe went to war far to 'quick' for me.\n\nI think we should at least elect a Congress in 2006 that will constrain the President's outrageous spending, and quick actions.  That means a Democrat majority.
1052773
It's certainly not an easy question or our elected leaders would have done it a long time ago.  And any simple answer you hear to this question is likely riddled with problems.\n\nOne problem is that one person's "pork project" is another person's vital program, so cutting out "pork" is not as easy as it looks.  There are some eggregious examples of wasteful & foolish spending every year, but most of the earmarked spending goes to projects that specific groups of constituents have clamored for.  And another difficulty is the fact that these pork projects are often part of the negotiations process for major legislation.  If we take away earmarked spending completely, it would be like trying to drive a car without ever giving it oil: the process would just break down & very little would get done.  It doesn't make earmarked spending right or wrong: it's just important to face the realities of politics if an effective solution is to be found.\n\nGovernors have it tough: they can't print more money every time they need it, so they actually have to balance budgets.  It would be a welcome change if the folks in D.C. would stop putting additional financial burdens on the states in an effort to look like they're cutting spending (ex. Medicare and No Child Left Behind.)\n\nSolutions?  We have to treat the federal budget like we would a credit card: You must not spend more than you can afford to pay or you will lose a LOT of money in the long run.  Despite the economic benefits of doing so, cutting taxes without cutting an equal amount of spending is simply taxation of those not yet old enough to vote.  So we need to reinstate "pay-as-you-go" rules & hold Congress accountable to those rules every election.  If someone votes for a tax cut without saying how the tax cut will be paid for, replace that office holder with someone who knows how credit cards actually work.\n\nTax cuts are not inherently bad and government spending is not inherently bad.  But spending what you can't pay IS bad.  That's the part that needs to change.
1030794
Is this one of the "grassroots new democratic party revolution" websites NPR was talking about?  Obviously the funding is the reflection of the owners' party, and ideological leanings.  \n\nBy-the-by I don't think Google functions very well and I don't think it will survive much longer without  massive renovations.
715489
Duh, the Democratic Party has always had as their core social issues. Sorry it had to be generalized but it is true. The basic party platform is to use funding of government, not on military and big business, but on social programs.
457151
We stop giving them the money.  I'd be less concerned with the $500 wastes and more worried about the $90 billion wastes.\n\nAnd believe me, they're plenty greedy before they get into office.  They're projected to spend $1 billion on ads for the midterms.  That means there is a lot of corporate money flowing to them and in return there will be a lot of corporate-friendly bills passed next session.