A non-serious campaign could use those funds to enrich themselves/others even with approved activities. They could pay for staff, buy signs, etc. and all those people & businesses would make money doing legitimate work for a campaign whose only purpose was to employ those people/businesses.
Not if staff and signs were only provided by the government. It no doubt comes with its own set of problems, but given what we’ve seen with open campaign finance, I think those wouldn’t hold a candle to what we have now.
That sounds like a system that would be rife for abuse.
How? You get a certain amount of funds to be spent on specific regulated activities if you pass a threshold of signatures.
A non-serious campaign could use those funds to enrich themselves/others even with approved activities. They could pay for staff, buy signs, etc. and all those people & businesses would make money doing legitimate work for a campaign whose only purpose was to employ those people/businesses.
Not if staff and signs were only provided by the government. It no doubt comes with its own set of problems, but given what we’ve seen with open campaign finance, I think those wouldn’t hold a candle to what we have now.
Yeah, good thing no one can abuse the current system by having a lot of money.
Depends on which current system you mean. I’m Canadian, and while it’s not perfect, it’s a pretty good system.