Strong majority oppose public campaign financing – 151 participants
Jul 31, 2017
New Hampshire does not currently offer any sort of public financing for elections, but there are some in the state calling for that to change. Read more about this issue. On July 31, Citizens Count, NH’s Live Free or Die Alliance decided to put the issue to its Facebook members, posting the question, “Should NH offer qualifying political candidates public campaign money if they agree to refuse private donations and limit spending?”
Should NH offer qualifying political candidates public campaign money if they limit spending?
Participation: 151 participants gave 212 responses.
A total of 90% of those participating gave a ‘yes or no’ response to the question. The remaining 10% of participants engaged in the discussion but did not give a ‘yes or no’ response. In total, 151 individuals from New Hampshire contributed a total of 212 responses or reactions to this question. (Click here for details on our methodology.)
What Participants Said
No: A strong majority of ‘yes or no’ respondents, at 78%, were opposed to offering qualifying political candidates public campaign money if they agree to refuse private donations and limit spending.
- “Taxpayers should not be coerced into funding any politician. To do so is theft.”
- “No. I donate directly to the candidate that I support. No middle man.”
- “As much as limiting money spent in the political game may improve choice, this NH resident doesn't see this idea doing anything effective if PACs still exist.”
Yes: A minority of ‘yes or no’ respondents, at 22%, were in favor of offering qualifying political candidates public campaign money if they agree to refuse private donations and limit spending.
- “Yes. All elections should be publicly funded. We need to call private donations to politicians what it is - bribery.”
- “It gives the everyday taxpayer much more control over the behavior of the people running when it’s on our dime.”
- “Public office should be about message. This gives the stage to more diverse ideas.”
Other: As noted above, 10% of those participating did not give a ‘yes or no’ response, instead addressing their comments to related questions and issues. These included:
- Alternatives: “If someone wants to run for office, it should be up to them to foot the bill. Lobbyists, corporations, bankers, and foreign investors/aid should not be allowed.”
- Constitutional changes: “What needs to change is the Citizens United ruling that allows for unlimited campaign contributions from corporations.”
- Questions: “I like the idea in theory but what is a qualified candidate? Who gets to decide?”
*Editor selection of actual participant quotes.