Romney spent $42.3M of his own $$

[© tweed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

this at Al - I've seen you criticize Obama and Clinton in the past for raising and spending millions upon millions.  do you find someone using personal wealth, such as Romney, to be preferable?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, I think it's even worse. I've said before that Romney is, in effect, the personification of (almost) everything wrong with American politics, and I've not changed my mind. Trying to buy an election is despicable.

[© tweed]

so you support public financing?  or a 'spending cap' (the latter I don't think would work)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

so you support public financing?  or a 'spending cap' (the latter I don't think would work)

Very strict spending caps.

[TheGlobalizer]

I'm glad Romney ran with his cash rather than with mine.

[Aizen]

What more is there to say? Romney was a joke.

[© tweed]

so you support public financing?  or a 'spending cap' (the latter I don't think would work)

Very strict spending caps.

money would just be directed at the national parties and 527s instead.  wouldn't make much of a difference.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

so you support public financing?  or a 'spending cap' (the latter I don't think would work)

Very strict spending caps.

money would just be directed at the national parties and 527s instead.  wouldn't make much of a difference.

Stick strict spending caps on them as well.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

so you support public financing?  or a 'spending cap' (the latter I don't think would work)

Very strict spending caps.

Really?  I think candidates should be allowed to spend as much money as they want, as long as it comes from legal sources.

[Verily]

so you support public financing?  or a 'spending cap' (the latter I don't think would work)

The latter is what I support. A maximum spending of $100,000 for House candidates, $100,000 times the number of House districts in the state for Senate candidates and $43,500,000 total ($100,000 times the number of House districts) for Presidential candidates.

Candidates may solicit as many donations as they want. However, they must report donations every month. At the end of every month, if their total donations exceed the spending limit, all remaining funds must be turned over to the federal government and no more donations may be accepted. If this last is violated, the candidate is disqualified from winning the office he or she is running for, and, if possible, removed from the ballot.

There is no cap on donation size.

Ban all spending by parties and 527s within three months of an election.

[TheGlobalizer]

Money = free speech.

People who vote a certain way because someone spends a lot of money = idiots.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

so you support public financing?  or a 'spending cap' (the latter I don't think would work)

Very strict spending caps.

Really?  I think candidates should be allowed to spend as much money as they want, as long as it comes from legal sources.

You think that it is acceptable to buy (or at least try to; up to a point voters often resent this sort of thing) an election?

[© tweed]

so you support public financing?  or a 'spending cap' (the latter I don't think would work)

Very strict spending caps.

money would just be directed at the national parties and 527s instead.  wouldn't make much of a difference.

Stick strict spending caps on them as well.

then they'll just make more 527s and PACs...

publicly financing the campaigns is the only real way to achieve what you want to achieve.

[Verily]

so you support public financing?  or a 'spending cap' (the latter I don't think would work)

Very strict spending caps.

money would just be directed at the national parties and 527s instead.  wouldn't make much of a difference.

Stick strict spending caps on them as well.

then they'll just make more 527s and PACs...

publicly financing the campaigns is the only real way to achieve what you want to achieve.

Like I said, completely ban advertising by 527s and PACs around election time. Problem solved.

[TheGlobalizer]

so you support public financing?  or a 'spending cap' (the latter I don't think would work)

Very strict spending caps.

money would just be directed at the national parties and 527s instead.  wouldn't make much of a difference.

Stick strict spending caps on them as well.

then they'll just make more 527s and PACs...

publicly financing the campaigns is the only real way to achieve what you want to achieve.

There's no way to achieve what he wants to achieve.

[TheGlobalizer]

so you support public financing?  or a 'spending cap' (the latter I don't think would work)

Very strict spending caps.

Really?  I think candidates should be allowed to spend as much money as they want, as long as it comes from legal sources.

You think that it is acceptable to buy (or at least try to; up to a point voters often resent this sort of thing) an election?

I think it has been shown time and time again that people who try to buy elections simply do not succeed.

[© tweed]

so you support public financing?  or a 'spending cap' (the latter I don't think would work)

Very strict spending caps.

money would just be directed at the national parties and 527s instead.  wouldn't make much of a difference.

Stick strict spending caps on them as well.

then they'll just make more 527s and PACs...

publicly financing the campaigns is the only real way to achieve what you want to achieve.

Like I said, completely ban advertising by 527s and PACs around election time. Problem solved.

never going to be that easy...

you know what 527 means?  it refers to a part of the relevant statute that is, by all definitions, a 'loophole' - it'd take years of legal wrangling to do exactly what you want to do...

I don't see why you don't support public financing.  it'd be very one-dimension so harder to evade, and, only cost the taxpayers a relatively small sum when compared to a week in Iraq, per cycle.

[Ebowed]

I don't support public financing of campaigns solely because I don't think my taxes should fund the hateful, moronic campaign of some homophobic redneck running for office in Alabama.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Stop criminalizing politics and remove the garbage campaign finance laws we have now.

Mississippi allows corporations or individuals to donate (I think up to) $100,000 to candidates and they don't have any more ethical problems than states that ban corporate contributions.  Candidates are able to hire more staff and they can spend time in their district talking to voters rather than on the phone having to plead for money $100 at a time.

[Keystone Phil]

Mississippi allows corporations or individuals to donate (I think up to) $100,000 to candidates

And PA doesn't even have a limit. 

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I don't support public financing of campaigns solely because I don't think my taxes should fund the hateful, moronic campaign of some homophobic redneck running for office in Alabama.

Nor mine to fund some hateful, ultra-left, anti-military, Communist, transvestite running for office in San Fransisco.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Mississippi allows corporations or individuals to donate (I think up to) $100,000 to candidates

And PA doesn't even have a limit. 

Friggin awesome!

[Sam Spade]

Al's solution would never get past the 1st amendment free speech barrier.  I suspect McCain-Feingold will be struck down one of these days, anyway, as it should have been the first time.

If there's one positive out of this, it's that Romney was helping a struggling economy with his profligate spending.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al's solution would never get past the 1st amendment free speech barrier.

True enough.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Come to think of it, the absolute best thing that could be done for American politics is to make political contributions tax-deductible.  There is absolutely no reason why one could deduct a contribution to the National Association of Topical Stamp Collecting, but cannot to a candidate of their choice maintaining the structure of our democracy.