My problem with the campaign donations approach is it seems like a money pit.
Campaign organizers in both major parties benefit by pointing out how the other party keeps spending more money, as a way to encourage even more donations.
It also seems like a negative incentive to pass certain laws. "We need money for the next campaign so we can work on $TOPIC" might be a good fundraiser, so if those laws are passed then the funding stops ... or even switches to the other party.
Which party is working on strict campaign donation limits, which in this post-Citizens United era we know requires a constitutional amendment, or an overturn by the Supreme Court. Certainly not the Republicans, as Vance is asking the Supreme Court to strike down limits on political donations precisely because PACs are now so powerful. Nor do I see active engagement by the Democrats.
These are generally state races with less money involved in them. I agree about systemic reform, but until that happens, you deal with the system as it is.
Campaign organizers in both major parties benefit by pointing out how the other party keeps spending more money, as a way to encourage even more donations.
It also seems like a negative incentive to pass certain laws. "We need money for the next campaign so we can work on $TOPIC" might be a good fundraiser, so if those laws are passed then the funding stops ... or even switches to the other party.
Which party is working on strict campaign donation limits, which in this post-Citizens United era we know requires a constitutional amendment, or an overturn by the Supreme Court. Certainly not the Republicans, as Vance is asking the Supreme Court to strike down limits on political donations precisely because PACs are now so powerful. Nor do I see active engagement by the Democrats.