Hacker News Reader

> If we took away all donations, only the richest could afford to run.

If we banned lobbying, took away all donations, and mandated all candidates use public funds to campaign, this would not be a problem. (Except to the very most annoying of Libertarians.)

View on HN

I've seen this suggestion made elsewhere and agree. One of the concerns raised was relative tv time being that things would be skewed towards the incumbent. To this I would propose exposure (tv, radio) inversely proportional to how the candidate does in polling, primaries etc. that is the weakest candidate get the most time... Presumably, the positions of the incumbent are already well known.

Why would we want this artificial evening of the race? If someone is polling at 2% why should he receive a huge portion of advertising time?

Doesn't make any sense.

"...took away all donations..."

I do think it is a great idea in theory, but again it violates the First Amendment to take away my ability to support a candidate.

Surely there are better ways to support a candidate than money. If you want to donate something to a candidate, donate hours of your time toward their campaign. If you have easily stated reasons for supporting a candidate, you will be more likely to get more supporters for said candidate with your word of mouth than with your money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com