PROS+and+CONS+for+PUBLICLY+FUNDED+ELECTIONS

LET'S BRAINSTORM HERE ... · Election would be more about issues, and not about money · Allows people who aren’t “privileged” to get involved in politics · Keeps one group or entity from having too much influence over candidate · You have more direct connection to election
 * = **ADVANTAGES** ||= **DISADVANTAGES** ||
 * · Balances out the scale in terms of money for elections

Andre, Ikechi, Chris, Munan * Public funding, with its inherent and imposed limits, puts the brakes on what has become out-of-control spending. (More people will “bet” on a returning winner, than the new “dark horse” of the race.)  Katie, Ryanne, Melanie * Stops candidates from having to please rich donors to retain their support > Robert and Elizabeth · Higher taxes · People might not support a group, but their taxes will go to them Andre, Ikechi, Chris, Munan
 * The money saved could be used to put into effect some of the things that candidates promise during their campaigns, but never seem to carry out.
 * The current system heavily favors incumbents, who receive 10 times as much money as new challengers.
 * Candidates start on an equal financial footing
 * Perhaps the more educated, and qualified, can run for public - Lillie's group
 * Allows anyone to run for office, not just those with the most money.-MM
 * Cuts the advantage for large-scale corporations to mass participate in the election process to pursue their financial interests without consideration for the interests of ordinary citizens in America or elsewhere, and sometimes these are human rights interests-Lillie's group
 * Cuts wasteful spending; more economically advantageous use of finances and taxpayer dollars-> more money to put back into the economy and funding for social programs-Lillie's group
 * Both Candidates are limited to the same amount of funds from the government to ensure a fair campaign. -KF
 * People will be able to participate in politics without the money restriction - CD
 * Prevents corruption, levels the playing field amongst competitors, and eliminates coorporation domination.- KK, CA, JJ, BL
 * A "greater variety of people" could run for office with "realistic hopes for winning". - KL
 * If elections were privately funded, those who were able to fund the campaign get to pay less taxes than everyone else, even if the contributer is financially able to pay the full amount of taxes. - WY
 * Able to concentrate on issues rather than raising money - JP
 * Reduces incentive for money laundering and fund raising scandals-Lillie's group
 * Allows candidates to make independent decisions and can be held responsible for them-Lillie's group
 * Allows ordinary citizens to run for offices based on merits and not wealth (or means) || · As a voter, your generosity is limited

is spent on campaigns, the more knowledgeable the voters are about campaign issues. voting behavior has concluded that campaign contributions have little or no effect on that behavior.” (Bradley A Smith, Cato Institute Study) are correlated much more closely to voting behavior than sources of campaign contributions (CQ Researcher)
 * Studies have shown that the more money that
 * “Every systemic study conducted of legislative
 * Ideology, voter sentiment and party discipline

Katie, Ryanne, Melanie -Funded by tax payer money or deficit spending -Money could be well spent on other things -Takes away the rights of Americans to support/hate who they want

Robert and Elizabeth

> > || ||
 * The Goldwater institute argues that public funding is "invasive" and " complicated" and that monetary contributions are a form a free speech. - KL
 * Campaigners find loop holes to unbalance the playing field by using money from their party. - WY
 * Most qualified individuals are the ones who have the most wealth, so would these not be the best candidates for political office? These people should use their advantage to benefit the greater good in gaining a representative position for the people voting for them.-Lillie's group
 * Though some may not support a certain political candidate, they would be indirectly supporting them because their taxes would be contributed to those who meet the requirements - CD
 * Increase in taxes-Lillie's group
 * Could create a national trade deficit due to corporate inability to aggressively pursue profit.-Lillie's group
 * The Candidate is required to use the funds only both the primary and general election. Under no circumstances can they use the money elsewhere. - KF
 * Limited amount of donation to public funding - JP
 * Takes away from taxes, and we don't always know where that money goes? - KK, CA, JJ, BL