YouTube Presidential Debate

[Captain Worley]

With public financing who gets to decide who gets financed?

[BrandonTO416]

With public financing who gets to decide who gets financed?

[MadVlad]

I had heard that the Republicans and Democrats made it more difficult for 3rd Party Candidates to truly get equal financing and airtime after the Ross Perot debacles. Does anyone know anything more about this?

[monsoon]

I had heard that the Republicans and Democrats made it more difficult for 3rd Party Candidates to truly get equal financing and airtime after the Ross Perot debacles. Does anyone know anything more about this?

[Charlotteman]

I understand Ralph Nader has not "ruled out" another run for the presidency.

His candidacy essentially put Bush in the White House in 2000. Can we stand another spoiler this time around?

Third parties are great, but look to 2000 to see what can happen when a semi-serious candidate like Nader syphons off votes and puts the runner up in office.

[monsoon]

I actually laugh at this idea that someone should not be allowed to run for office because it would hurt a Democrat or Republican. Calling Nader is disingenuous serving to detract from the fact that democrats and republicans are not meeting the needs of the people and thus, progressive people feel the need to vote for a 3rd party candidate in protest.

[monsoon]

It's interesting to note that only 2 of the Republican candidates will agree to the same YouTube debate. As limited as it was, it appears the GOPers don't want to be faced with answering questions from the people. I think that speaks volumes on this lot as what they will bring to the Presidency should one of them be elected.

[kayman]

It's interesting to note that only 2 of the Republican candidates will agree to the same YouTube debate. As limited as it was, it appears the GOPers don't want to be faced with answering questions from the people. I think that speaks volumes on this lot as what they will bring to the Presidency should one of them be elected.

[Lowerdeck]

It's interesting to note that only 2 of the Republican candidates will agree to the same YouTube debate. As limited as it was, it appears the GOPers don't want to be faced with answering questions from the people. I think that speaks volumes on this lot as what they will bring to the Presidency should one of them be elected.

[kayman]

I have absolutely no respect for Mitt Romney. He is a piece of work that deserves whatever nasty that is said about him. IMO he makes McCain actually look like a person of integrity.

[runawayjim]

It doesn't take a revolution, it takes public financing of campaigns and more free TV airtime that goes equally to all candidates.

[BrandonTO416]

It does matter whether financing is public for campaign contributions.

If various special interest groups are allowed to donate to candidates, and the candidates know they rely upon these campaign contributions to fund their election in order to get to office, these people hold unfair power as to what laws can be passed or not passed.

If you make campaigns more accessible, demand public airwaves be given free air time for political debate and discourse - rather than relying on the 30 second ad that campaigns must pay for - then we could see major change for the better, for every party and viewpoint involved.

Public financing would not take away free speech. Private groups that are separate from the party, so-called 527 groups of today, can still purchase TV ads and speak their mind.

But for a candidate to rely on private money from special interests? Who do you think bought the Medicare Drug bill that had no government ability to negotiate and buy in bulk to lower prices for taxpayers? LOL

This is an area where I see bi-partisan consensus potential. It wouldn't matter whether its a Democrat or a Republican in office, if your campaign is being financed by a great deal of pharmaceutical money, the pharmaceutical industry will get what it wants regardless of party affiliation. And candidates who oppose this system of pay-for-play -regardless of background, party, or political beliefs- will always be at a disadvantage to stand against these types of laws.

Ironically its the libertarian minded people who should advocate public financing. Elections aren't a private event, they are a very public issue. This isn't about socialism. LOL

[runawayjim]

It does matter whether financing is public for campaign contributions.

If various special interest groups are allowed to donate to candidates, and the candidates know they rely upon these campaign contributions to fund their election in order to get to office, these people hold unfair power as to what laws can be passed or not passed.

If you make campaigns more accessible, demand public airwaves be given free air time for political debate and discourse - rather than relying on the 30 second ad that campaigns must pay for - then we could see major change for the better, for every party and viewpoint involved.

Public financing would not take away free speech. Private groups that are separate from the party, so-called 527 groups of today, can still purchase TV ads and speak their mind.

But for a candidate to rely on private money from special interests? Who do you think bought the Medicare Drug bill that had no government ability to negotiate and buy in bulk to lower prices for taxpayers? LOL

This is an area where I see bi-partisan consensus potential. It wouldn't matter whether its a Democrat or a Republican in office, if your campaign is being financed by a great deal of pharmaceutical money, the pharmaceutical industry will get what it wants regardless of party affiliation. And candidates who oppose this system of pay-for-play -regardless of background, party, or political beliefs- will always be at a disadvantage to stand against these types of laws.

Ironically its the libertarian minded people who should advocate public financing. Elections aren't a private event, they are a very public issue. This isn't about socialism. LOL