Publicly financed elections.

[Heywood]

No, it doesn't work at all.

A campaign is an event specifically designed for a candidate to express their viewpoints and to encourage voters to help them achieve public office. That is emphatically not (supposed to be) the point of corporate entities. Campaign money is raised for the purpose of an election. Corporate profits are not (supposed to be).

It fails further because I mentioned pretty clearly that the candidates should have equal access to equal amounts of money which is strictly limited and should be entirely accounted for. Again, not the case in the corporate world.

It fails mostly because there is no basis for comparison at all between a campaign and a corporation. They don't do the same things, they don't operate the same way, and they don't serve the same ends. Only, you think that it should be like that.

So, again, why not just sell votes, so that people who can afford to vote a million times can? That's the logical end result of money equaling speech, after all. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

You cannot give all the candidates equal amount of money. You can only give the candidates you select an equal amount of money. If you are going to give everyone who runs for president 100 million dollars...I will be running for president too and so will a lot of other people. A rule requiring so many signatures to be a valid candidate requires that campaigns be privately financed because to go out and get signatures...requires a campaign. Publicly financed campaigns simply will not work unless the government first picks the candidates.....and that is going to be abused.

Your understanding of a corporation is wrong. Corporations do not spend corporate profits, they spend money. Corporations do not have to make money to have money to spend. Corporations often retain some or all of the money that make as retained earnings. Retained earnings are supposed to be used for the benefit of the corporation. The reason you dislike corporations spending money on campaigns is because you feel they benefit too much from that spending. This is evidence that it is true that corporations benefit from donating money to campaigns. Your claim that corporate profits are not supposed to be used for campaigns is just wrong on so many levels. It really just amounts to you don't like the way people spend money when they assemble together as a corporation and want to legislate the actions of others to conform with your will.

There is plenty of money from businesses and labor unions and other non profits that pour into an election already....so that their messages can be heard......yet there is no market place where I can buy up or sell votes. Your claim that the logical result of money equaling speech is the buying or selling of votes simply does not follow in the real world. It is a hallow claim.