[EL] Public financing vs. money out

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

Regarding this:
 
If we had a public finance system that enabled worthy candidates to  raise 
sufficient money from public funds, it can completely neutralize the  
influence of private money.
 
This raises one of the dilemmas for those who support public funding.   One 
of the main motivations for public funding is to reduce the overall amount  
of campaign spending.  So public funding almost always has some features  
that outright cap and have the effect of reducing overall spending. since 
that  make candidate reluctant to get into the system for fear of being 
outspent, the  system then usually has some elements of coercion, like reducing the 
 contribution limits of private funders.  Until the "reform" lobby gives up 
 this part of their public funding schemes, the schemes will not give 
candidates  "sufficient money from public funds" and their systems will fail.  
Jim  Bopp
 
 
In a message dated 3/10/2016 12:12:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Tom at TomCares.com writes:

It's not  a big leap that public financing could alleviate the undue 
influence of  big private-sourced money in politics.  


How do you think Jerry Brown would have done against Meg Whitman's 9  
figures, if he'd only raised 4 million?


Exorbitant money will beat no money (save maybe the pg&e anti-cca  
initiative), but it does little against sufficient money (see e.g. Jeb Bush).  If we 
had a public finance system that enabled worthy candidates to raise  
sufficient money from public funds, it can completely neutralize the influence  of 
private money.


I think a congressional candidate who raises 600k from a voter voucher  
system would typically beat one who raises 2 million from the energy and  
finance sectors. A solid congressional campaign is doable on  600k, and the 
opponent's 2 million will likely  backfire.




Thomas Cares

On Thursday, March 10, 2016, Larry Levine <_larrylevine at earthlink.net_ 
(mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net) >  wrote:

Let's  assume President Sanders, or President Clinton, or President anyone
else  could overturn Citizens United. Now tell me how that gets money out  
of
politics. Debate moderators are not challenging candidates on  this
misstatement. There was PAC spending on campaigns even before  Citizens
United and there will continue to be after Citizens United.  Tonight, 
Sanders
went one step further and offered that the solution to  political problems 
is
to repeal Citizens United and institute public  financing. Of course, one
thing has nothing to do with the other. And  neither of them will eliminate
money in politics. But I'm not sure if the  debate moderators  understand
that.
Larry

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ (javascript:;) 
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election




--  



_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing  list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160310/91e1abf2/attachment.html>