Voter Funded Campaigns

End the hi-jacking of our elections.

sponsored by brokeneconomy org • co-sponsors: (3)Become a Co-sponsor

primary topic: Campaign Finance
secondary topics: Lobbying


Campaign contributions must be limited to personal funds of individuals able to vote in the election. Free speech is a human right. Corporations or political action committees are not human and do not have a right to vote. If an out of state individual wants to have input into local affairs then they should move to wherever they want to meddle. I contend that they should not have the right to dominate the election process. At one time America had a slogan, "No taxation without representation." For elections we should have, "No representation without voter registration." This simple requirement would also go a long way to curing the lobbyist problem.


Campaign reform

by Barry Ellsworth on 01/23/12

When Congress passed the NDAA, I decided to run for the U.S. Senate. I filed with the FEC on the 12/28/11 and I believe it showed up on the FEC site on 01/08/12.

You can go to my website at, and read more about me.

I want Congress fired. I want Citizens United v. FEC overturned. Corporations are not people and money is not speech.

I want to build 30 square miles of solar panels out here in Nevada as a national project and put everyone in Nevada and California back to work building it.

I am willing to spend a significant amount of my own money to further the election, but I need help.

If you want change, go to my website and help. Contribute, then tell every person you know about me and my website and my message.

I want the people on Wall Street that were selling junk paper as AAA paper, thrown in jail for securities fraud, and I will do everything in my power to do that if you guys will help me get elected.

It's easy to say you want the money out of politics, until you are asked to spend some. I am asking you right now to go to my website and spend just a bit more than you are comfortable spending.

This is your country and mine and the wealthy elitists are already at war with you. They are throwing people out of their homes on a daily basis, while they let the bankers doing it, pay themselves billions in salary and bonuses.

You want change? Here I am.

Barry Ellsworth

The Answer

by Tim Ellis on 10/06/11

This is THE issue facing America. Taking money out of politics restores politics to the people. We are the 99%, and we deserve one vote for one person - not one vote for one dollar.

Campaign finance

by Manny on 10/04/11

I agree with Ruby. I also would like contributions to be anonymous to the politician or party. A limit of $100 or $200 per voter (only voters in the district of the candidate). Party money should NOT be allowed in local elections up to the office of US Senator. That leads to non-local control of our local elected leaders. There should also be a limit of radio and TV airtime that each candidate may purchase. Say 10 mins. per day per candidate no more than 2 months from election day. Nothing worse than being deluged at election time with political ads that say the same thing. No PAC ads should be accepted AT ALL. If a candidate does not endorse the ad, it should not be allowed on air. Money from PACs may or may not be local and unduly influences elections. Especially true since there is no fact checking on these ads.

A pessimist's view.

by Rob George on 10/02/11

I support this bill with every fiber of my being, but I just can't see it happening.

To get a politician, of any party, to vote for taking away a large chunk of his or her campaign funds is problematic.

Our great nation got into this state gradually, and we will need to take baby steps to recover.

It's all very frustrating. Over a span of many years, we built a great and powerful nation from dreams, blood and sweat, and we will, eventually, bring it back to greatness.

I can see a limited version having at least a chance of passing.

Campaign finance

by Mike Hill on 10/01/11

I believe that since we all enjoy the benefits of this country, we should pay for the process that elects our government. With 300 million people, at even $10 a head per year, we should be able to create a fund to finance even 10 viable candidates without resorting to corporate buying of our government. I also feel, that with a few bucks in the pot, some people might be interested in exercising the "right" that they had paid for. The question is bound to arise, why should a parent pay for a nonvoting child? At $180 to get that child to voting age in the greatest country in the world, I would consider it one of the better investments you would be offered.


by Ruby Bell on 10/01/11

We don't want to take the long way to curing campaign contributions. Make it ILLEGAL for our elected political officials to receive any contributions--for election campaigns or any other reason-- from corporations, big business or lobbyists. We need to force Congress to work for all the people, since it's the average working taxpayer that pays their salaries and entitlements.

Submit an Op-ed



Op-ed Guidelines
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.

Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).

Your Ad Here