This is a platform for User Generated Content. G/O Media assumes no liability for content posted by Kinja users to this platform.

Who is wrong-er?

Money in politics

Illustration for article titled Who is wrong-er?

We’ve seen a lot of money pour into American politics since the landmark Citizens United v. FEC, a ruling that, in a nutshell, described money as a form of free speech, and corporations as people with free speech rights. Although this was an important case, and opened the type of floodgates that would allow Hillary Clinton to spend almost eight hundred million dollars over the course of 20 months,most American politics have always been bankrolled privately (though some states have publicly funded elections), many politicians feel disgusted by the process, and it provokes a lot of avoidable bias.

Mexico has a completely different system however, and our more strict system will probably result in a ten million dollar fine to our President Elect’s party and a few “leech” parties loosing their right to be registered as parties or of public funding. yes, public funding.


Although private donations can be made, those are very severely controlled, I just wonder if a system alike this would work in the US, surely some wako tea-partiers would go nuts thinking that the feds would give them money for their campaign but in a sense it would stop a lot of bad influences from getting into any candidate’s head. Be it rich bankers or rich coal execs; the limitations could help people get candidates that represent them a bit better.

It’s not to say it’s worked here or that it’s flawless; the reason I referred to the parties loosing their registration as “leeches” is because no one really votes for them, but as long as they have 3% of the vote they get to stay funded publicly, would you imagine if someone gave public money to a crazy person like Gill Stein? It’s what happens here sometimes, this props up some illegitimate candidates, and serves to make the election less democratic as if there are more candidates who can fund their campaign, then the vote will be split in many ways and the winner, in the worst case scenario, might end up with a minority of the total vote, as it happened here for four elections since 1988.

It’s also not very popular: voters hate paying for campaigns for politicians that might not use the funds in the best ways, and politicians have little way of making big bucks on their own, in a sense they’re envious of the US system where taking money from a business isn’t a crime. This is where, in the midst of the Earthquake, politicians and shortsighted SJWs asked that the parties have their funding stripped away and instead attain it privately, it sort of worked, and campaign finance was an important topic during the elections, as two candidates declined public funding whatsoever and had to raise money with all the shortcomings of the very strict system.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter