How are you voting on June 8th?

[enron_by_the_sea]

My notable votes by mail.

GOP Ballot:

Gov: Meg (Best Candidate against Jerry Brown)

Sen: Tom Campbell (Best candidate against Boxer)

State props:

13: Yes, because legislator put it on ballot unanimously.

14: It was a close call but voting Yes because we need to rescue primary process from loonies from both sides

15, 16, 17: My system of by default voting NO on props.

County Props

A,B: By default voting NO

City prop.
C: By default vote NO.
D: It was a close call but voting Yes because something needs to change in the city. Maybe this will be worse, but I must try.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be publicly financed or to be privately financed. Publicly financed candidates would be matched dollar-for-dollar against the privately-financed candidate for the same office who raises the most money. This would mean that privately-financed candidates would have no advantage over publicly financed candidates. Further, in cases where at least one of the candidates chooses public financing, the voters would always have the easy choice of choosing either candidates who are bought-and-paid for by special interests or the publicly-financed candidate who has to pay back no one.

Shortly, I think, under the above system, all candidates would forgo private financing as there would be no benefit to it and only downside. We could crush the special interests by essentially making their money irrelevant to a candidate’s election/re-election. This would also have the side benefit of making fundraising irrelevant and thus politicians could focus on legislating/governing as opposed to fundraising all the time.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be publicly financed or to be privately financed. Publicly financed candidates would be matched dollar-for-dollar against the privately-financed candidate for the same office who raises the most money. This would mean that privately-financed candidates would have no advantage over publicly financed candidates. Further, in cases where at least one of the candidates chooses public financing, the voters would always have the easy choice of choosing either candidates who are bought-and-paid for by special interests or the publicly-financed candidate who has to pay back no one.

Shortly, I think, under the above system, all candidates would forgo private financing as there would be no benefit to it and only downside. We could crush the special interests by essentially making their money irrelevant to a candidate’s election/re-election. This would also have the side benefit of making fundraising irrelevant and thus politicians could focus on legislating/governing as opposed to fundraising all the time.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be publicly financed or to be privately financed. Publicly financed candidates would be matched dollar-for-dollar against the privately-financed candidate for the same office who raises the most money. This would mean that privately-financed candidates would have no advantage over publicly financed candidates. Further, in cases where at least one of the candidates chooses public financing, the voters would always have the easy choice of choosing either candidates who are bought-and-paid for by special interests or the publicly-financed candidate who has to pay back no one.

Shortly, I think, under the above system, all candidates would forgo private financing as there would be no benefit to it and only downside. We could crush the special interests by essentially making their money irrelevant to a candidate’s election/re-election. This would also have the side benefit of making fundraising irrelevant and thus politicians could focus on legislating/governing as opposed to fundraising all the time.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be publicly financed or to be privately financed. Publicly financed candidates would be matched dollar-for-dollar against the privately-financed candidate for the same office who raises the most money. This would mean that privately-financed candidates would have no advantage over publicly financed candidates. Further, in cases where at least one of the candidates chooses public financing, the voters would always have the easy choice of choosing either candidates who are bought-and-paid for by special interests or the publicly-financed candidate who has to pay back no one.

Shortly, I think, under the above system, all candidates would forgo private financing as there would be no benefit to it and only downside. We could crush the special interests by essentially making their money irrelevant to a candidate’s election/re-election. This would also have the side benefit of making fundraising irrelevant and thus politicians could focus on legislating/governing as opposed to fundraising all the time.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be publicly financed or to be privately financed. Publicly financed candidates would be matched dollar-for-dollar against the privately-financed candidate for the same office who raises the most money. This would mean that privately-financed candidates would have no advantage over publicly financed candidates. Further, in cases where at least one of the candidates chooses public financing, the voters would always have the easy choice of choosing either candidates who are bought-and-paid for by special interests or the publicly-financed candidate who has to pay back no one.

Shortly, I think, under the above system, all candidates would forgo private financing as there would be no benefit to it and only downside. We could crush the special interests by essentially making their money irrelevant to a candidate’s election/re-election. This would also have the side benefit of making fundraising irrelevant and thus politicians could focus on legislating/governing as opposed to fundraising all the time.

[CA renter]

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be publicly financed or to be privately financed. Publicly financed candidates would be matched dollar-for-dollar against the privately-financed candidate for the same office who raises the most money. This would mean that privately-financed candidates would have no advantage over publicly financed candidates. Further, in cases where at least one of the candidates chooses public financing, the voters would always have the easy choice of choosing either candidates who are bought-and-paid for by special interests or the publicly-financed candidate who has to pay back no one.

Shortly, I think, under the above system, all candidates would forgo private financing as there would be no benefit to it and only downside. We could crush the special interests by essentially making their money irrelevant to a candidate’s election/re-election. This would also have the side benefit of making fundraising irrelevant and thus politicians could focus on legislating/governing as opposed to fundraising all the time.[/quote]

Agree 100%…but would outlaw private funding altogether. No reason for taxpayers to have to match those who come in with tons of money.

[CA renter]

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be publicly financed or to be privately financed. Publicly financed candidates would be matched dollar-for-dollar against the privately-financed candidate for the same office who raises the most money. This would mean that privately-financed candidates would have no advantage over publicly financed candidates. Further, in cases where at least one of the candidates chooses public financing, the voters would always have the easy choice of choosing either candidates who are bought-and-paid for by special interests or the publicly-financed candidate who has to pay back no one.

Shortly, I think, under the above system, all candidates would forgo private financing as there would be no benefit to it and only downside. We could crush the special interests by essentially making their money irrelevant to a candidate’s election/re-election. This would also have the side benefit of making fundraising irrelevant and thus politicians could focus on legislating/governing as opposed to fundraising all the time.[/quote]

Agree 100%…but would outlaw private funding altogether. No reason for taxpayers to have to match those who come in with tons of money.

[CA renter]

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be publicly financed or to be privately financed. Publicly financed candidates would be matched dollar-for-dollar against the privately-financed candidate for the same office who raises the most money. This would mean that privately-financed candidates would have no advantage over publicly financed candidates. Further, in cases where at least one of the candidates chooses public financing, the voters would always have the easy choice of choosing either candidates who are bought-and-paid for by special interests or the publicly-financed candidate who has to pay back no one.

Shortly, I think, under the above system, all candidates would forgo private financing as there would be no benefit to it and only downside. We could crush the special interests by essentially making their money irrelevant to a candidate’s election/re-election. This would also have the side benefit of making fundraising irrelevant and thus politicians could focus on legislating/governing as opposed to fundraising all the time.[/quote]

Agree 100%…but would outlaw private funding altogether. No reason for taxpayers to have to match those who come in with tons of money.

[CA renter]

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be publicly financed or to be privately financed. Publicly financed candidates would be matched dollar-for-dollar against the privately-financed candidate for the same office who raises the most money. This would mean that privately-financed candidates would have no advantage over publicly financed candidates. Further, in cases where at least one of the candidates chooses public financing, the voters would always have the easy choice of choosing either candidates who are bought-and-paid for by special interests or the publicly-financed candidate who has to pay back no one.

Shortly, I think, under the above system, all candidates would forgo private financing as there would be no benefit to it and only downside. We could crush the special interests by essentially making their money irrelevant to a candidate’s election/re-election. This would also have the side benefit of making fundraising irrelevant and thus politicians could focus on legislating/governing as opposed to fundraising all the time.[/quote]

Agree 100%…but would outlaw private funding altogether. No reason for taxpayers to have to match those who come in with tons of money.

[CA renter]

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be publicly financed or to be privately financed. Publicly financed candidates would be matched dollar-for-dollar against the privately-financed candidate for the same office who raises the most money. This would mean that privately-financed candidates would have no advantage over publicly financed candidates. Further, in cases where at least one of the candidates chooses public financing, the voters would always have the easy choice of choosing either candidates who are bought-and-paid for by special interests or the publicly-financed candidate who has to pay back no one.

Shortly, I think, under the above system, all candidates would forgo private financing as there would be no benefit to it and only downside. We could crush the special interests by essentially making their money irrelevant to a candidate’s election/re-election. This would also have the side benefit of making fundraising irrelevant and thus politicians could focus on legislating/governing as opposed to fundraising all the time.[/quote]

Agree 100%…but would outlaw private funding altogether. No reason for taxpayers to have to match those who come in with tons of money.

[enron_by_the_sea]

I can recall several instances where a politician running for office makes someone (usually his girlfriend, kids etc.) a consultant in his re-election campaign for some big amount. It seems like election campaigns can become another welfare system for (a different) do-nothing segment for our population. The last thing we want is the tax-payers to pay for it. ( Who is going to watch over how that money is spent?)

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be .[/quote]

[enron_by_the_sea]

I can recall several instances where a politician running for office makes someone (usually his girlfriend, kids etc.) a consultant in his re-election campaign for some big amount. It seems like election campaigns can become another welfare system for (a different) do-nothing segment for our population. The last thing we want is the tax-payers to pay for it. ( Who is going to watch over how that money is spent?)

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be .[/quote]

[enron_by_the_sea]

I can recall several instances where a politician running for office makes someone (usually his girlfriend, kids etc.) a consultant in his re-election campaign for some big amount. It seems like election campaigns can become another welfare system for (a different) do-nothing segment for our population. The last thing we want is the tax-payers to pay for it. ( Who is going to watch over how that money is spent?)

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be .[/quote]

[enron_by_the_sea]

I can recall several instances where a politician running for office makes someone (usually his girlfriend, kids etc.) a consultant in his re-election campaign for some big amount. It seems like election campaigns can become another welfare system for (a different) do-nothing segment for our population. The last thing we want is the tax-payers to pay for it. ( Who is going to watch over how that money is spent?)

[quote=IForget]I think it’s time for complete public financing of national elections and state-wide elections. Corporations and the elite are buying our representatives for relatively little cost. Give a Senator a million and get back a billion. The million goes to the Senator and the billion comes from the taxpayers and goes to the donor. We can’t allow this practice to continue and expect to persist as a nation.

My idea is to let candidates choose either to be .[/quote]

[Author]

Posts