Wealthy Democrats Call for Public Campaign Financing
How about reducing the scope and power of government to reduce the incentives instead?
Some big Democratic donors have a message for Congress: Don't rely so much on the rich to fill your campaign war chests.
A group of 60 wealthy donors and activists have signed onto a new letter urging Congress to create a system of public financing that would curtail their own influence in elections, according to a copy of the letter being sent to the Hill on Friday.
Signatories to the letter include major Democratic bundler Naomi Aberly, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, Ben & Jerry's co-founder Ben Cohen, tech mogul David DesJardins, businessman Arnold Hiatt and Jonathan Soros, among others.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This seems like a way to reduce the power of moneyed interests in politics but I'm sure there's some detraction I'm overlooking.
The detraction is that taxpayers foot the bill for electing people that will tax us further, even if we disagree with their policies.
But if we regain control of our elected officials we could ultimately end up saving money. As it is we probably pay more for cronyism than we would pay for election financing. Media outlets could donate time for politicians to have debates and state their positions.
I'm pretty sure that whoever benefits from things like Obama's $1 Billion presidential campaign spending wouldn't be enthusiastic about it though.