Ok so this Mini-McCain-Fiensgold( I forgot the second guys name, sorry about that)idea is a valid point in which I can agree upon. Though I do know it is the individual's responsiblity to get their own funding, sometimes it is a disadvantage to go up against some one who has more money than they would ever have in their lifetime. So I would vote yes on this proposed legistation because not only does it create a fair playinng field for government state elections, It also promotes more people to step up and try to be heard. -Julio C. Basso
I am not very sure about this proposition but i think that I would vote yes for it. I think that election campaigns would be a lot more fair if every candidate spent the same amount of money. That way even the third parties would have a higher chance of winning an election for any given position. This would also controm campaign spending which would be better for the economy because different organizations would not have to spend as much money for others. DANIELA MICHEL
I would vote yes for this proposition althought i dont feel strongly about it. However I believe that this is the fair way to actually allow public funding for the candidates and the candidate can allow the funds or not and I think its the publics decision is they want to give funding towards a certain candidate and this propositions allows that but in a fair way. -Yvette magana
I voted yes on this proposition. Like others, this propostion didnt have good reasoning on how it could help or why this is a good idea. I voted yes, but I did not really feel like I could really give an explanation. I think that it is fair that all the candidates get the same amount of funding so each candidate, even third parties, have the same opportunity to win. However, I also feel like if other people gave money to the candidate they want to win, who are we to decide how people spend their money?
If I could vote with regards to this proposition, I would vote yes. I would vote yes because I agree with the proposition's plan to creat a public fund for the candidates in order for that public fund to be evenly distributed amongst the candidates. This would make campaigns more fair and give all candidates the same amount of power to influence the public and so the candidate would focus more on policy instead of fundraising for their campaign. I think proposition 15 is one of the good equal props on the ballot this year and I would vote yes on it.
I would actually say no to proposition 15. Although it sounds like its very fair, I feel that there are many hidden loop holes. Sure public funds would be equal, but what about the rest of the money that candidates receive, such as donations? In the end, I feel that the comparison of money between the candidates would be of the same ratio, just with higher amounts. Less popular candidates will receive more funds, but so will those that already have a lot of money. I feel that this will only add on to the unnecessary campaign spending. -Alexandra Vinalay
I would vote no on Proposition 15. I think some may argue it is free speech for the public. I think it is unequal speech for the public. A public fund would give a bigger voice to the people with more money. Usually these people are big business owners and California's elite, not the general public. I also think that this proposition would give the candidate with the most money an advantage. I think it would also actually reduce the chance of third parties to win because most of the money would go to the big name candidates. -Gabriel
I would vote no on Prop 15 because it doesnt benefit anyone besides people running for secretary of state. It will allow them to fund recieve funds from anyone including big large companies. I would also vote no on this prop becuae it will increase charges on lobbyists, will lift state ban on public funds, and will allow organizaitons/parties to create a money bag from companies and other supporter. This is why I would vote no for prop 15. --Celeste
I would vote no on this proposition. Proposition 15 does not provide freedom as speech and is not leaving people decide for themselves, rejecting the Constitution completely and the morals that people are born with. People have the right to speak out and against this and have the right to not increase the lobbyist. DENISE GARCIA
I would vote yes on proposition 15, The Public should be allow to donate to their favorite candidate. Preventing them is a form of banning their0 freedom of speech
i would vote no on propostiton 15 because it will eventually eliminate the band on the use of public funding for political campaigns. i think it's riduculous that canidiates would possibly spend millions and millions on campiagning when as a country we are all in some sort of economic hardship. there are so many problems californians are facing and having to deal with those who spend all these money is uneccessary. the limit on campaign funds should remain so that all candidates, those who may not have enough money for their campaigns, would have a fair chance to get into office. i think prop 15 allows these candidates to get votes on how they advertise and campaign,w hen it should be based on their views on certain issues. thats why i would vote no. -phi
I would vote for prop 15 because I would like more equal elections. It would make the campaign system less corrupt. SO then people would have to vote not baed on campaign money, because more money means more publicity. but the votes would be purely based on the candidates.
I would vote no on this proposition because i do believe that there were fund limits on campaigning initially for a reason. If these bans were to be taken down, then any wealthy candidate can use their abundant amounts of money to fund for their election. Although funds are seen as their own form of free speech, the fact that some candidates have more money than other people is unfair. It is not a fair election and those bans on how much one can fund for their campaign should be upheld.
I would vote no on this prop because the public does not need to be paying for the candidates' campaigns, especially when only one of them is going to win. The winner will go into office and make back all the money that they spent, the losers have to deal with their loss. Either way i would be very upset if I new that my tax dollars were going to a random candidate particularly if they did not comply with my interests and they didnt win. Candidates don't need the public to pay for them.
After listening to this presentation I would have to say no to proposition 15. First off it’s not our responsibility to pay for candidates’ campaigns even though we might want them to win. That is why there are donations for and we already have bills to pay so that’s less money we get. Also we dont get to chose who to give it so it really doesn’t do much for us. So we might be helping somebody that doesnt have the same views which is why this shouldn’t be passed.
I vote no on proposition 15. I think it's the candidates option to spend money and not the publics responsibility to give money to the candidates. I also think it'll just ban the limitations that are already set in place. Public funding is a form of freedom of speech and we have the choice to give donations. So I think it should not be passed. -Tekly
I would vote yes for this proposition because I think that if a candidate appeals to its citizens, then its citizens can go and support them through funding. The citizens should be the ones who say what candidate they want and be able to throw in funds for their candidates if they wanted to or not.
I do not have a strong opinion on this proposition since I caneasily see both sides of the argument, for or against Proposition15. I believe that if I say yes to this proposition it will be good since if people wanted to they should be able to contrinute to a candidates campagin, its their form of free speech. I also see the no side since the people should not be the ones who pay for their campaigns. Overall, I don't think I would vote for this proposition since not only can I see benefits in both sides, but I do not feel that it will effect me in any great way.
I would vote NO on proposition 15 because in reality it has no affect on me as a citizen. Implementing this proposition would only cost more money just to give the the candidates more money for thier campaigning. I dont think that this propositionis essential because it would be a waste of monry that our state does not have.
Ok so this Mini-McCain-Fiensgold( I forgot the second guys name, sorry about that)idea is a valid point in which I can agree upon. Though I do know it is the individual's responsiblity to get their own funding, sometimes it is a disadvantage to go up against some one who has more money than they would ever have in their lifetime. So I would vote yes on this proposed legistation because not only does it create a fair playinng field for government state elections, It also promotes more people to step up and try to be heard.
ReplyDelete-Julio C. Basso
I am not very sure about this proposition but i think that I would vote yes for it. I think that election campaigns would be a lot more fair if every candidate spent the same amount of money. That way even the third parties would have a higher chance of winning an election for any given position. This would also controm campaign spending which would be better for the economy because different organizations would not have to spend as much money for others.
ReplyDeleteDANIELA MICHEL
I would vote yes for this proposition althought i dont feel strongly about it. However I believe that this is the fair way to actually allow public funding for the candidates and the candidate can allow the funds or not and I think its the publics decision is they want to give funding towards a certain candidate and this propositions allows that but in a fair way.
ReplyDelete-Yvette magana
I voted yes on this proposition. Like others, this propostion didnt have good reasoning on how it could help or why this is a good idea. I voted yes, but I did not really feel like I could really give an explanation. I think that it is fair that all the candidates get the same amount of funding so each candidate, even third parties, have the same opportunity to win. However, I also feel like if other people gave money to the candidate they want to win, who are we to decide how people spend their money?
ReplyDeleteIf I could vote with regards to this proposition, I would vote yes. I would vote yes because I agree with the proposition's plan to creat a public fund for the candidates in order for that public fund to be evenly distributed amongst the candidates. This would make campaigns more fair and give all candidates the same amount of power to influence the public and so the candidate would focus more on policy instead of fundraising for their campaign. I think proposition 15 is one of the good equal props on the ballot this year and I would vote yes on it.
ReplyDeleteI would actually say no to proposition 15. Although it sounds like its very fair, I feel that there are many hidden loop holes. Sure public funds would be equal, but what about the rest of the money that candidates receive, such as donations? In the end, I feel that the comparison of money between the candidates would be of the same ratio, just with higher amounts. Less popular candidates will receive more funds, but so will those that already have a lot of money. I feel that this will only add on to the unnecessary campaign spending.
ReplyDelete-Alexandra Vinalay
I would vote no on Proposition 15. I think some may argue it is free speech for the public. I think it is unequal speech for the public. A public fund would give a bigger voice to the people with more money. Usually these people are big business owners and California's elite, not the general public. I also think that this proposition would give the candidate with the most money an advantage. I think it would also actually reduce the chance of third parties to win because most of the money would go to the big name candidates.
ReplyDelete-Gabriel
I would vote no on Prop 15 because it doesnt benefit anyone besides people running for secretary of state. It will allow them to fund recieve funds from anyone including big large companies. I would also vote no on this prop becuae it will increase charges on lobbyists, will lift state ban on public funds, and will allow organizaitons/parties to create a money bag from companies and other supporter. This is why I would vote no for prop 15.
ReplyDelete--Celeste
I would vote no on this proposition. Proposition 15 does not provide freedom as speech and is not leaving people decide for themselves, rejecting the Constitution completely and the morals that people are born with. People have the right to speak out and against this and have the right to not increase the lobbyist.
ReplyDeleteDENISE GARCIA
I would vote yes on proposition 15, The Public should be allow to donate to their favorite candidate. Preventing them is a form of banning their0 freedom of speech
ReplyDeletei would vote no on propostiton 15 because it will eventually eliminate the band on the use of public funding for political campaigns. i think it's riduculous that canidiates would possibly spend millions and millions on campiagning when as a country we are all in some sort of economic hardship. there are so many problems californians are facing and having to deal with those who spend all these money is uneccessary. the limit on campaign funds should remain so that all candidates, those who may not have enough money for their campaigns, would have a fair chance to get into office. i think prop 15 allows these candidates to get votes on how they advertise and campaign,w hen it should be based on their views on certain issues. thats why i would vote no.
ReplyDelete-phi
I would vote for prop 15 because I would like more equal elections. It would make the campaign system less corrupt. SO then people would have to vote not baed on campaign money, because more money means more publicity. but the votes would be purely based on the candidates.
ReplyDeleteI would vote no on this proposition because i do believe that there were fund limits on campaigning initially for a reason. If these bans were to be taken down, then any wealthy candidate can use their abundant amounts of money to fund for their election. Although funds are seen as their own form of free speech, the fact that some candidates have more money than other people is unfair. It is not a fair election and those bans on how much one can fund for their campaign should be upheld.
ReplyDelete-Thomas Pham
I would vote no on this prop because the public does not need to be paying for the candidates' campaigns, especially when only one of them is going to win. The winner will go into office and make back all the money that they spent, the losers have to deal with their loss. Either way i would be very upset if I new that my tax dollars were going to a random candidate particularly if they did not comply with my interests and they didnt win. Candidates don't need the public to pay for them.
ReplyDeleteI would vote yes for prop 15 because public funding is a form of freedom of speech. So passing prop 15 is advocating freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to this presentation I would have to say no to proposition 15. First off it’s not our responsibility to pay for candidates’ campaigns even though we might want them to win. That is why there are donations for and we already have bills to pay so that’s less money we get. Also we dont get to chose who to give it so it really doesn’t do much for us. So we might be helping somebody that doesnt have the same views which is why this shouldn’t be passed.
ReplyDeleteI vote no on proposition 15. I think it's the candidates option to spend money and not the publics responsibility to give money to the candidates. I also think it'll just ban the limitations that are already set in place. Public funding is a form of freedom of speech and we have the choice to give donations. So I think it should not be passed.
ReplyDelete-Tekly
I would vote yes for this proposition because I think that if a candidate appeals to its citizens, then its citizens can go and support them through funding. The citizens should be the ones who say what candidate they want and be able to throw in funds for their candidates if they wanted to or not.
ReplyDeleteI do not have a strong opinion on this proposition since I caneasily see both sides of the argument, for or against Proposition15. I believe that if I say yes to this proposition it will be good since if people wanted to they should be able to contrinute to a candidates campagin, its their form of free speech. I also see the no side since the people should not be the ones who pay for their campaigns. Overall, I don't think I would vote for this proposition since not only can I see benefits in both sides, but I do not feel that it will effect me in any great way.
ReplyDeleteI would vote NO on proposition 15 because in reality it has no affect on me as a citizen. Implementing this proposition would only cost more money just to give the the candidates more money for thier campaigning. I dont think that this propositionis essential because it would be a waste of monry that our state does not have.
ReplyDelete