Would single-payer pass if we had publicly-funded elections?

[ColbertWatcher]

[WCGreen]

1. There would be no incentive to do otherwise....

[jgraz]

2. Nope. They'd find other ways to keep the bribery going

[imdjh]

3. I voted "no".

This is like asking if burglary would stop if we did away with jewelry. A thief is a thief- he steals because he is a thief.

Corruption in politics will cease when politicians refuse to be corrupt and when the people elect politicians who refuse to be corrupt. It's a choice, like every lack of integrity, it is a choice.

[Political Heretic]

4. Yes because working class americans could get elected.

[imdjh]

7. Working class Americans elected Ronald Reagan and George Bush

Sorry, but way too many working class Americans are too stupid to get out of their own way. It's terrible to say that, but it's true.

[Political Heretic]

8. I don't agree. Reagan and Bush were elected with massive campaign funding

Yes its true, you can spend enough money and spread enough lies to dupe enough people into voting against their best interests.

But that's not reason to adopt a "people are too stupid to govern themselves" attitude. That's a reason to attack the root of the problem: the indiscriminate money manipulation and distortion of the political process.

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. You mean Poppy Bush, right?

Considering Chimpy was never elected at all.

[Ikonoklast]

11. I can say the same of those upper-class twits without a brain

in their head and a trust fund from Grandpa Warbucks.

See: Any GOP Convention.

Broad brush, etc.

[imdjh]

12. I was just pointing out that "working class" ≠ "noble"

And why the DU text editor doesn't recognize "does not equal" sign and prints it as ≠ I don't know.

[Laelth]

5. That or a public option like the UK's NHS. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[CrispyQ]

6. Yes,

because Congress would consist of a significantly different member set than what it is now, a set more representative of the American population. We will never take back our country until we get big money out of our political process. Money should not equal free speech.

When Money Is Speech, Speech Is Not Free

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/davis_fec_millionaires_amendment.php

snip...

By Jeff Milchen
First published July 8, 2008 in the Baltimore Sun
(This edit expands on the original version for newspapers)

Building atop the rotten foundation it laid three decades ago, the Supreme Court (Federal Election Commission v Davis) has struck down the “Millionaires' Amendment,” a federal law that helped keep Congressional elections competitive when a candidate funded their own campaign with a personal fortune. The law could have applied to 28 or more races this year.

The Court's ruling repeatedly references its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which wrote between the lines of the First Amendment passage, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” to declare spending money to influence elections is constitutionally-protected free speech.

Since then, the Justices have struck down numerous laws designed to limit the power of money over election outcomes (and ballot initiatives).

What's shocking about the Supreme Court's opinion in Davis, however, is the disputed 2002 Millionaires' Amendment to the McCain-Feingold Bill made no attempt to limit spending. To the contrary, it merely enabled candidates competing against a free-spending millionaire or billionaire to raise more money. According to the Court's own logic, this simply enabled more “speech.”

more at link

[HughMoran]

10. Single payer? Probably not, but public option would be much easier to get through

I doubt corporate influence would cease with public funding, though it would definitely help some.

[Captain Hilts]

13. Yes, but now Democrats have no motivation to push for them. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

14. No. There is the lure of paradise

just beyond the Revolving Door of Congress.

Big Pharma, Big Med, Big Insurance, they will offer lucrative beyond-the-dreams-of-Avarice do-nothing jobs to any who vote "nay".

It's not just campaign funds that influence the vote.

:hi: