The need and viability of public financing of elections

[LSK]

In a previous thread, I floated the theory that GOP Senators don't dare vote to end the war because they fear being cut off from the GOP fund raising machine that Karl Rove controls.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1421358

Now imagine if these Senators did not have to worry about how they will fund their next election. Dick Luger, John Warner, Lamar Alexander, John Sununu, George Voinovich have all hinted in the past few months that maybe this war is a bad idea, yet they continue to filibuster Democratic efforts to end the war (or on timetables that just start a withdrawal). Take away the chains of financing a $25 million Senate re-election and maybe the Dems will suddenly have 60 votes.

How much would all of this cost? I have heard several times on the Randi Rhodes show that one Senate campaign costs around $25 million and House races cost $5 - $8 million to run.

Now considering Senate Races, there are at any given time 33 seats up and figure 2 Senators vying for one seat:

33 Seats x 2 Candidates x $25 million = $1,650million or $1.65 billion. $1.65 billion every 2 years to fund the Senate races.

Now consider House Races, there are 435 seats up every 2 years and assuming 2 candidates and $5million:

435 Seats x 2 Candidates x $4million = $4,350million or $4.35 billion. $4.35 billion every 2 years to fund all House races.

That means it costs $6 billion every 2 years to fund the races for every seat in Congress.

Now in comparison, I have heard that the war in Iraq costs us $2 billion a week. $12 billion a month.

1 month in Iraq could fund 2 complete Congressional races.

I do not think public financing of elections will even come close to breaking the bank and it just might free some Congressmen to actually vote their conscience.

[dorkulon]

1. Wouldn't cost nearly that much.

You're making a mistake, I think, in assuming that the amount of money spent on campaigns today is a reasonable amount to expect from public financing. The key is that each candidate receives an equal amount, not an exorbitant amount.

I think if you look at public financing in other countries, it doesn't cost nearly that much.

[LSK]

2. its better to use higher figures

If you predict the worse case scenario, and even that is not very expensive, your argument is that much stronger.

I did use the lower figure for house races because some races would run unopposed.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Public financing is tougher than an impeachment vote...

for those clowns down there. Republicans are dead set against "more government spending" and Democrats are catching up to Republicans in brib... er, campaign contributions.

And, that coupla bucks on the tax form is rarely checked off any more, so the public doesn't seem to give a shit.

If I was emperor for a day, one of the first things would be to eliminate private campaign financing and limit campaigns to 3 months. If I had a really good day, I'd ban all TV ads, too.

[dkofos]

4. Just because they raise that much doesn't mean they need that much