|
|
The Granite State Debate Over Campaign Finance
listen:
  As Barack Obama and John McCain debate how to raise money in the presidential race, New Hampshire officials are appointing a panel to study how the state could adopt public financing for State Senate and Executive Council races. Advocates say public financing would enrich democracy by enabling low-income candidates to compete with well-funded rivals. Opponents counter that public financing is an attack on free speech that takes money and power away from citizens and gives it to the state. We’ll get the latest on campaign finance and hear about reforms in other states. Guests
We'll also hear from
|
Support FromHighlightsNavigationUser login | ||||
I can see public financing being beneficial, but not particularly YET in America. More in a place such as England where various candidates of a number of political parties - FAR more than the restricted 2 bipartisan system in America - would each be given a chance to campaign and get their opinions heard so that there's a great equal representation; despite the fact that some money may be going to someone not supported in particular by you, you would be able to see that which you do support represented as fairly as the others. Whereas in America it doesn't make as much sense yet since there are only two parties, not as many views are really being represented, it's fairly black and white (dare I say) which is unfortunate.
At the same time and in a similar sense, it WOULD give more candidates the ability in America to be heard, despite either being a democrat or republican restriction, and possibly therein give a much needed change to the American status quo as such; as opposed to simply the very wealthy candidates doing well, as we've seen in American history. So it can certainly go either way, but I can certainly see it working.
J Wilkinson, Plymouth NH