Do you think Political parties should be publically funded?
964868
The problem with this suggestion is that they'd be likely to be funded at the current levels of expenditure - around £30 million each for a general election - and that's just indulging their whims, allowing them to put up smug billboards and make PPBs directed by Ridley Scott or whoever.\n\nWhy do they NEED funding? They get free access to the broadcast media, and all the newspapers carry their opinions - do they actually need to advertise? Do they have to fly from one end of the country to the other every day of a campaign to tell us about their environmental policies? Do their wives need a £3000 haircut before they can go out and tell us about the plight of the homeless?\n\nWe already spend around £4 million per year of taxpayers' money, for instance, policing the conferences of each of the two main parties. I'd be quite happy for the taxpayer to fund a reasonable team of researchers and admin staff - maybe a million pound's worth - but overall party spending should be limited to the same amount (per constituency fought) as is allowed to an independent: about £7,000 per constituency plus 5p per voter, or a bit under £6 million for a major national party. Then they wouldn't have to court big donors and compromise their principles.
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.
611292
Yeah, that'd be nice but whats "right for the people" can be seen differently by different people. Thats what parties are for, to bring different views to the situation so that there's always more choices for the people to vote on.
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!
667938
Are you talking a system of government or which political party should be in power?  If the former, then it should return to the way it was when the government was founded - a republic.  If the latter, then I would say whatever direction an enlightened citizenry (unlike we are today) wants to take it.
686247
Yes, some NGO's receive government funding.  Many could not exist without that money.  They often have to do special applications and proposals to get the money and must reapply for it every year.  They usually also have to account for the spending of the money.  Sometimes there are strings attached to the money, such as they have to support certain philosophies.
863075
Yes, they should be party centered. Why? Because as it is now. If Bill Gates wanted to be President he would be President. He has the money. Gates could spend 20 times the total of both Democrats and Republicans have spent to win any office.\nAs is it now Democrats represent the working class. Republicans represent the wealthy and the Corporations. It's pretty simple to decide which class you are.
818665
I would likely support it. We need a more centralist party. One without the extreme views of both R's an D's. One that looks out for the interests of the middle class.
29532
I think the first thing would be to stop all the corporate lobbyists and various activists from purchasing politicians. Get the payola out of the picture, and soon you'd have an honest debate based on what people want, not what powerful interests want.
119249
I don't. It is my right and my privilege not to. There should be a blank vote. When ever the blank vote wins, all politicians would have to step down and give room for new faces, new ideas and new elections. There should be more than two political parties. Politicians these days are a joke, they are there just for the money and the power, they dont really care about their country. Freedom is a luxury for those who can afford it.
320834
I think the government could be useful if people like us would just stand up and start doing something.  America needs to start by cutting out this two-party bullshit.  There are only two major parties that get funded by people who get personal favors.  Then, basically we as Americans have few choices when it comes to our leaders.  There just needs to be a shift in national political theory...
882194
My wife and I were talking about the same thing the other night.  \nPoliticians spend $2.6 BILLION on this past election.  What kind of programs could of that funded?  We have people living on the streets!  \n\nBut it's keeping your face in the public eye.  Think about when you look at a ballot.  How much do you know about the Green party candidate?  It's who has the most money.  \n\nAnd think about it - if Devos spent $40 million, the job only pays $172,000 per year!  That's like buying a 1979 Chevy Chevette for $300,000!  But it's not about money, it's about power.
1146933
That's interesting. Really.\nI didn't look through the whole site.  So government funding advertising and campaign, with no private donations or little if using a match system.  It may work, but there are possible problems.  \nHow much money\nCould any candidate qualify with signatures, I'm not trying to be totally exclusive, but I also don't want any moron with a few signatures using taxpayers money to run a stupid campaign that endorses some stupid agenda, like wicans or something.\nAnd there's an extra commission or committee every year to determine equity in the funding.\nAnd it is kind of socialist.  Just kind of, don't get mad.\nI'm not trying to be negative, just thinking of pitfalls.\n\nIt is something to think about.
579034
well, you won't make as much money as you could in the private sector...but it'd sure be a nice change of pace to have some smart people in politics as compared to some of the doofuses that are currently running things...:)
1032472
No, you can't trust democratic (as well as non-democratic governments) to spend money wisely by a number of reasons. First: even when a democratic government represent 55% of the voters, there are potentially 45% (if not more), who would disagree with the government's policies. Second: the fact that you vote for a government does not mean you support or will support everything they do - they just look a little better than their opposition at the moment, that's why people vote for them. \nDemocracy certainly does not guarantee the best decisions. Think of the times when the Earth was considered flat. Imagine what the democratic vote on this issue would have been: "democratically decided - the Earth is flat!" \nHowever, imperfect as it is, democracy is by far the best form of delegating power to ensure it represents the common interest of society. This interest may be mediocre, but it certainly will be acceptable for a large part of the people.
1030754
EYes campaign finance is needed. There are many ways to do it. 1: Inforce  the Fairness Doctrine, get news departments back to doing the news...not infotainment.\n2: Take away Corporate person hood, a corporation is not a person and the should not be able to use money as political speech.\n3: Have publicly financed elections. It won't cost each taxpayer that much and we'd get the special interests out of the electoral process.\n4; Go back to paper ballots. Our right to vote should not be handles by for profit companies!\n5: Make it so ex-politicians, staff members or public officials can't join companies or firms to lobby Congress for 5 years. Family members  of current politicians, staff members or public officials(down to 10th cousin twice removed if need be) can't not be lobbyists. This is for the time the politician is in office and for 5 years after wards.. I know this will probably never happen, but we can try.
1007836
Would you believe the typical politician works for us Tuesday-Thursday on Capitol hill? Hillary and Kerry are busy right now trying to drum up support for their 2008 presidential election. What a shame too. All that fundraising money could go to so much better causes, since it's likely they'll lose again.