Should California allow public funding for political candidates?

Candidates should be allowed to receive public funding under anonymous donations to help prevent any outside influence but help fund different political ideologies and their freedom of speech

Yes, because many candidates already get supported finacially supported

Yes, but only if candidates cannot pay for their political campaign.

No, and all public funding for political candidates should be abolished

only public contributions should be allowed

Yes, but only if private donations are capped off for individuals and corporations

Yes, but make it clear which organizations are funding the candidates.

All candidates should receive the exact same points to campaign with.

Yes, but only in local elections

No, make campaign funds even cap for everyone, make it easier to know each candidate and their values

Yes and ban private donors to ensure that candidates are acting based on their own beliefs and in the publics best interests.

matching funds or voucher system. cap it, make it equitable like financial aid, skeptical of pure tax funding.

Yes, but only from AMERICAN Citizens. No PACTS or Foreign influence.

CA should allow only public funding for political candidates.

Yes, only if you meet specific financial requirements

Only for those that can prove they need the support. Not for high income candidates.

By full citizen choice

No, campaigns should be funded by Califirnia citizens, with a limit set, per person. Cor0orations and lobbyists shouldn't be allowed to donate.

If CA wants to put their money out like that they should. But at the end of the day, it is up to the people of CA.

yes but provide the same budget for the parties that are running

Yes but as a zero interest loan

Yes, but the funding must be regulated as there would be bribery from the rich who want control.

Are there any publicly elected officials? There should be a sent amount of total campaign funds. It could be used whether that is $1 $,100 per registered voter in the district. They're in this would make it more reasonable to have more than just two parties to choose from, along with term limits also

I don't have A opinion

No! Down with the capitalist system!

with limits of amount and no PACs

There should be a limit

Yes, but only through means of ethical deliberation.

No, and funding for any political candidate is a no-go as well.

Funding produced by the people and progressive organizations should be allowed but any elite or corporation pouring into a candidate should be a punishable crime

Yes and no package citizens United Not a person if cang pig behind bars faf to much money in elections billionaires should have same limit we do period no buying elections and laws

No, however we should not allow donors to influence political candidates.

with limits

Yes but with a limit

Yes, but ban private, corporate, and lobbying donation

I think it may be a waste of money.

um maybe

No foreign donors. full stop. don't really care about the other parts. stop taking money from foreign government entities.

Yes, but there should be a limit on how much a political candidate can be funded

Yes. All political campaigns should be publicly funded only and Citizens United should be overturned.

No because California is a very large state, they should need the peoples support not funding.

yes, but each fund should be monitored

Yes and make it the only money allowed to be spent

yes but get rid of pacs and super pacs

yes but have a limit on money spending

Yes, and California should impose a cap on funding from private sources

Yes, the public should be allowed to fund who they want in office

No political spending should be allowed. Only candidates with actual support from real people should be able to win.

Id say it depends on the circumstances

Yes, allows those who want to fund to fund, and if they do not wish to do so, then they have the right to say no.

Yes, as long as they show legitimate potential. An education, decent amount of followers, good team, and does not have the funds necessary. Then that can be given a limited amount of money.

Yes, and ban the use of private funds. Everyone should have the same fund access and cap regardless of the candidate’s economic status.

Use a base line for candidates to help their campaign or have the people vote for a certain amount of candidates base on funding.

I believe they should be able to use public funding but only to a certain extent. donations on their campaign can still be eligible for usage.

I think that all candidates should have the same amount of allowed funding whether that is public or private funds.

Yes, but keeping it under control and make sure there is no over the top funding from groups.

I'd prefer a government mandated time and funding for every candidate to have equal time and representation so that they are judged by their agenda and their potential by the people rather than the wealth.

yes but to a limit

I support fair elections, and think public funding should be considered with limits and transparency.

Yes because if you need the help you should get it, also makes things easier.

Yes, and private fundraising should be disallowed.

Really depends

Yes but it needs to be regulated to avoid lobbying with bad intentions.

U feel like they should have equal funding

No, but all funding, by donors to campaigns should be transparent and the data be available to citizens

If it's people donating out of their own volition, then I don't see a problem, but if it's mandatory, then no.

whatdatmeandoe

it depends on their circustance

Yes but it shouldn't be mandatory.

Yes but not make it mandatory

Yes, only if private funding is abolished

Why am I paying for a wealthy politican's public campaign and why are others endorsing for him?

People can spend their money however they want. As long as it’s not mandated and people have a choice I think it’s fine.

Yes, better than private funding

Yes, Political funding should be monitored with public records

If a candidates actually wants to do good for the country.

yes but close loopholes that allow corporations and wealthy individuals to spend more than the average person in government elections.

yes, but with strict safeguards and transparency.

If they want to fundraise go for it but don't use money from the gov for it

Yes, but with a limit on how much can be provided through public funding, ensures anyone can be a candidate but doesn't spend too many resources.

absolutely we conduct more than half of the money spending we give most of our money we HAVE so much we can literally be a country itself.

"Democracy Vouchers." Under this system, the government provides residents with a specific dollar amount in the form of vouchers (for example, four vouchers worth $25 each) that they can "donate" to the political candidates of their choice.

Yes, but it shall not come from a city or an entity, it should be from the individual. If a person wants to donate only a dollar, let them donate only a dollar.

They should fund if the political candidates are willing to change the U.S. into a better society than it is right now. They should publicly sustain their promises and let the people decide if they are good candidates or not.

Yes but only after a certain point such as if a canidate is lower income and not able to support their own campaign.

I am unsure, but I would support public funding for political candidates only if there were strict limits and full transparency.

No, we need to start spending less money in California, and especially not on political advertising.

it isn't the most important to me. To be honest I feel like a lot of politicians are able to make money, that shouldn't be the peoples job to pay for status.

I do not concern with this question as it is not my argument to say what is right or wrong, and it is not my concern to know what the government is doing as ik both side may say something bad about each other but still give information

It really depends on the cause I want to say no but I would understand this could benefit a few programs

As long as there is full transparency because political candidates shouldn''t be limited to just the richer people.

I think California should allow public funding for political candidates, but with a limit that includes them using it for something good for the public

No except in the case of income based, there is and underrepresented population due to the requirements of paying to enter races

I think we should, but I think it would be more efficient for public fundings so that supporters can support the candidates without using the tax money. I also think it prevents taxes from being higher.

Yes but donations rather than taxes being paid for them

In the case of public funding, there needs to be a cap of the amount that can be fundraised. Super PACs rig elections and have unprecedented control over election results. Regulate it.

As long as a large portion of that does not come from our tax dollars.