Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (266919)	1/4/2006 11:20:15 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1573092

re: I think spending limits are a reasonable idea. They should be tailored to the number of people who are eligible to vote for the particular office not to salaries which are often artificial. I think tax funded elections are a better idea... take the special interests (except citizens) out of it entirely. Your idea of funding based on the number of eligible voters is new to me, and I think a great idea. John

To: TigerPaw who wrote (266919)	1/4/2006 11:22:57 AM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573092

Your bias is showing, what about Reid? He took more money than Delay.... The 527s obviously showed the campaign finance reform failed did it not?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (266919)	1/13/2006 7:11:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573092

I think spending limits are a reasonable idea. If you limit how much of the candidates own money he or she can spend to communicate then you have a fairly clear 1st amendment problem. If you only limit how much money someone can raise and spend than I would still see it as a first amendment problem but the supreme court might not agree. Also if you only limit how much someone can raise and spend than you give a much larger advantage to wealthy candidates and incumbents Tim