i will say - the dnc spent ~a billion dollars on their campaign. it was a good campaign. but what a waste of $$. there has got to be a better way. so many peeps who could least afford these donations, made them.
i am curious about how other countries spend money on elections. canada is vast in terms of land mass (similar to us) but we don't spend anything near that amt on our elections.
how can we curb this? how can we make it more affordable?
i am truly curious.
We have shorter campaigns (6-8 weeks). And lots of good rules about ads and stuff.
The problem is that the people who make the rules also stand to benefit from removing restrictions, so they do.
I’d be an advocate for publicly funded elections with a fixed amount per electorate, but where I live that gives a ridiculously unfair advantage to the big parties who can pool money and run national ads, while local candidates struggle.
Work in progress.
We’ve found a temporary solution in which we ask people to donate to a fund that will allocate money to independent candidates who’ve been chosen by their community to run.
There are benchmarks they nave to meet to qualify, and viability concerns to decide how to direct the money, but it’s gone pretty well so far.
https://www.climate200.com.au/
I’s still money that matters, and the goal needs to be to reduce spending. It’s just fighting the oligarchs with their own weapons.
@DyDave i, too, would be in favour of a publicly funded, fixed amt. but like you say, the smaller independents would struggle.
but perhaps that would force candidates to do more door knocking, be more in their communities, get their faces out at every community event & become known in face to face interactions vs billboards?
i dunno. hard to say. & some of our constituencies cover quite a fair distance. 🤔