S.752 - Fair Elections Now Act

A bill to reform the financing of Senate elections, and for other purposes. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Fair Elections Now Act as introduced.
  • Official: A bill to reform the financing of Senate elections, and for other purposes. as introduced.

Comments Feed

  • mkail666 08/31/2009 3:57pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    This entire system of “public funding” is optional. None of the candidates have to participate. However, if the candidates decided to participate the provisions are such that only major party candidates could have a chance of receiving matching funds. Even if a minor candidate was able to qualify, this bill does not guarantee him or her a right to debate the major candidates.

    Smoke and mirrors.

  • Comm_reply
    JobyOne 01/26/2010 3:54pm

    A shortcoming yes. But if you were starving would you rather have a sandwich without lettuce or no sandwich at all?

    This is a funding reform bill, not a debate reform bill.

  • Comm_reply
    Chewey_Delt 01/28/2010 11:28pm

    That is simply not true; I refuted this in the specific comment you made in regards to the debate section. If a minor candidate does qualify, she would not only get the opportunity to, but be required to debate the major candidates, unless there was an influx of candidates to any one election. Because all candidates receiving public funds would be required to participate in 2 debates with other candidates—noted that it does not say “all other” candidates—if there were 3 candidates in a race, one each from the major parties and a third party candidate, then that third party candidate would have to debate at least one of the major candidates at least twice.

  • Mazeman 01/25/2010 3:50am

    We need a bill like this now more than ever after The Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission on 1-21-10. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent against the ruling, “the court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.”
    An unconstitutional and perhaps even treasonous court ruling by Roberts and the other 4 in favor.

  • snarlbuckle 01/26/2010 3:38am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I personally find this bill unfair. Unless I have read it incorrectly, it seems to favor those that are in office and not the competition. It is currently hard enough for a new candidate to replace an entrenched congressmen, let alone when congress spends government money without having to campaign as much. This bill tips an already skewed scale in my opinion, and I am not in favor.

  • Comm_reply
    tgoff8739 09/27/2010 6:21am

    How does the bill favor those that are in office? To me, it seems to me to foster support for grassroots politicians, who by and large do not have the same financial access for running their campaigns. Sure, incumbents would probably find it easier to get personal donations, but try not to underestimate the political power of successful grassroots organizations! :-)

    I urge you to watch Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?

  • kbthiede 01/29/2010 10:12am

    Well one thing is certain. A bill MUST be introduced to go against the court’s ruling, embedding in law that there must be a limit on corporate funding in elections.

Vote on This Bill

82% Users Support Bill

187 in favor / 41 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments