It’s tragic, the cost of elections, what could all that money, billions, be used for the total betterment of our society, the list would be extremely long! I would hope that the electorate would come to our senses and demand “Public Financing” No more requests for money, letters, phone calls, etc. and no more corporate buying of elections! If you agree take the appropriate steps! Chuck Watson, Baxter.
“Service to Humanity is the best work of life!” J.C. Creed
Comments (11)
Add commentCampaign Spending Gone Rogue
This response was posted last week to what I thought was an editorial about the insane cost of elections, but the comments got off track. Maybe this revision will make more sense here. I agree, it is astonishing that so much money can be found to pay for elections and campaigns, but we can't take care of our own people, infrastructure or environment. What a waste, particularly at the national level.
It is not only the issue of where the money isn't going- it is how buying elections changes our democratic system of government which is troubling, and certainly disenfranchises voters. As a nation we seem to be moving from a republic toward an oligarchy, which by definition is where true power is restricted to a few, in this case, those who can buy elections. This is systematic and media driven, not necessarily by individuals who have to use the system to get elected (even though some are better than others at using it). Surely, this is not what the originators of our Constitution had in mind? Superpacs are just a legal way for the wealthy, whether they consider themselves corporations or individuals, to buy elections, as money cannot be given without limit to individuals. It almost hurts to feel helplessly taken in by it all in order to exercise the right to vote. The fact that my one vote should count the same as that of any other who expects to have return on investment is the only satisfaction available. In my mind, the candidate who spends less should win, but there is no way to tell.
Why is this so difficult for most to comprehend- are we too obsessed by American Midol, et al, than what is really going on in this country? I can't wait to sit mindlessly through the overpriced, attack TV ads for the next 5 months, knowing that so much to better ourselves as a nation is not being done because of cost, while a few indulge in this rather embarassing and expensive game of public argument about gay marriage, abortion, religion, and other issues which do not belong in the public domain and are not functions of government.
We like to think we are smarter than this, so why is it OK? Also, can we please stick to the campaign finance issue here, and not denegrate to a partisan blame game, as this affects political campaigning at all points in the spectrum. Thanks!
edit
here is a blog on the Citizen's United ruling
and its effect on the cost and results perhaps of US elections.
http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/2012/06/the-terrible-billionaire-effect...
lake
Just what do you left wingnuts do all day & night to come up with links like you do?? I myself do not know how to attach a link & I am never going to learn. I really did'nt care for your kind for really ganging up on a GOOD person like LifeLong for not attaching a link. Pick on me I can take it. I am used to dealing with skitter's & smeagol's (falling skys & lord of the ring's) like your kind.
We like to delve
Deeply into a topic and find the facts. Never too old to learn, old farm boy. Often others say things much better than we can.
Facts or Your "Facts"?
I heard that a bunch of those nasty Republicans, that won't try to comunicate with Obama to get things resolved in DC, waited for hours at one of his fund raisers but he wouldn't give them a half hour of his Presidential time.
Delve deeply into a slopic is the phrase.
P.S.
When does the liberal bus convoy leave for Wisconsin?
I know some parents that don't want their children to see dead people chasing after the bus because they didn't know what time!
Just a thought
It would be tricky to get passed, but what if we taxed PAC contributions at.. oh, 60% or better? $.60 of each dollar donated to a PAC designated to directly paying down our national debt. Then go ahead, let them gather & spend as much as they desire, at least we'd know some good would come from it.
Seems like we tax every other non-essential activity or product at outrageous levels and feel okay about doing it (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, fast food, gasoline), why not tax the ability to manipulate our elections?
Of course in this hypothetical scenerio we'd maintain the tax-free status for participating in the political process the NORMAL way, by donating directly to the candidate or party (where democratically adopted rules & limits exist). Just tax the PACs.
George
Are you still the brother John never talks about?? Good golly I would have to say that is a very good idea. Keeps my smokes & gas down.
BTW are you & John related to Father Galt in the Sunday paper?
moniker explained
I am the brother John Galt never talks about, seems quite a bit of human reality doesn't fit neatly into his narrative. (I'm referring to the tome of greed, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged).
That said, other than the fact all men are my brothers, no direct relation here to Father Galt. Thanks for the kind words though.
I just spewed
on my keyboard.
George
I like it. Unfortunately it will never happen because the ones who would have to vote for it and pass it are the ones who benefit and, dare I say, depend on PAC money.
We should all encourage our legislators to put THIS on the ballot and let the public decide. It pays down the debt and curbs some of the problem with campaign funding. Win win for the public. Pain in the rear for politicians.
I hear you
Other than a massive public movement, the only way I see politicians getting behind a solution like that is if a "friendly PAC" is eventually blamed for a "favorite" Rep party candidate's election loss, possibly by going too negative on the opponent. (It would have to happen that way as Dems are already open to eliminating or reducing the power of PACs, it's the GOP who need convincing).
The candidates inability to directly coordinate with supporting PACs (legally), and the fact any nut job with some start up funds and the initiative can create a PAC, does seem to lead to the eventual outcome where power brokers within both parties may prefer regaining more control over the message voters are receiving.