Presidents for the people?

Factual Questions
1

Fact . It costs so much money to go forth to president in the US.

Fact. The candidate raises the money himself or through his supporters.

Fact. He will get money from superrich indviduals and companys.

Now tell me this. How can this same man when in office be impartual. His owes so many favors to so many people.

For a foreigner this looks like a big corruption machine.

There might be laws but how can they prevent the president from makeing choises out of selfinterest.

Also, the guy who looses is in deep shit.

Thor

2

In my humble opinion, the guy who wins is in deep shit, too.

It takes an obscene amount of money to run for any substantial public office in the U.S.
Until these joik-offs in Washington get off their self-serving asses and pass meaningful campaign finance reform, it’s only going to get worse. The soft money has to go.

They could take a lesson from Jesse Ventura, governor of Minnesota. He took no soft or PAC money at all.

3

Agreed Nickrz. However, do you think they’ll ever truly pass campaign finance reform? I mean, the soft money got them there in the first place.

Jesse Ventura did well with no soft money, but he already had a lot of name recognition, which made it easier to run with less money. Until reforms are passed making advertising easier and cheaper for candidates, they’ll continue to need soft money.

4

One thing you have to keep in mind–giving money to support a candidate’s run for office is not inherently wrong. It’s when a corporation or lobby expects there to be a one-to-one ratio between the donation and its influence that you have improper influence.

5

But Guy. Is that not the case?

Thor

6

No. Oh sure, I’m sure that if the Nat’l Rifle Association gave George Bush Jr. a huge donation, he’d be more likely to express opinions against gun control. However, I think the reason they’d be giving him money would be because he already is of that opinion.

Groups always tend to give money to candidates that already think like they do. Why waste money trying to convert your opponent? It’s too risky, and just not cost-effective.

7

It isn’t the financing that needs reformed. Eliminating political advertising would eliminate the need for 95% of campaign financing and keep the elected official from having to kowtow to special interest groups with deep pockets.

Free speech concern? There are already limits on advertising (alcohol, tobacco) for the public good, why not on political ads? The politicians would have to get out and meet the voters (since corporations can’t vote) and get their platforms and positions listed in the newspapers, on the internet or through the local TV news.

Will it ever happen? I doubt it since it would take much of the advantage away from the incumbent and they are the ones who would have to make it happen.

8

I’ve got a better idea than restricting political advertising. Allow it…but disallow paid political advertising. Make the networks give a certain amount of free advertising time to political candidates (subject to certain qualifications) as part of the conditions of their FCC licenses. Then, after ensuring that politicians meeting the same qualifications have equal access to advertising, forbid them from buying advetising time on those media. No more big money pressures.

Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

9

Like it or not, EVERY effort to reduce the influence of money, or of “special interests” in U.S. elections has turned out to be a disaster. After years of campaign finance “reforms,” money is more important than ever.

There’s no way around this fact: it’s extremely expensive to run a political campaign, no matter how frugal and honest you are. If YOU wanted to run for office, you’d have to spend a fortune, because (right now), NOBODY knows who you are. You’d have to spend a LOT of money on advertising, just to gain a modicum of name recognition. Suppose there were strict legal limits on how much money you could spend; YOU would have absolutely ZERO chance of defeating an incumbent politician, because that incumbent is already well known.

It’s no coincidence that both major parties have a lot of “celebrity” candidates (Sonny Bono, Bill Bradley, Steve Largent, Jack Kemp, J.C. Watts, Ralph Waite)- those people had a HUGE advantage, in that they were already well known before they began campaigning. It’s also not coincidence that there are so many multi-millionaires in Congress (interestingly, Congressional liberals are every bit as rich as any of the Republicans!)- those guys can spend their own money, and aren’t subject to campaign finance reform laws!

Now, why don’t other democracies have this problem? Because in countries with a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is not chosen by “the people,” but by the leaders of his party! That USED to be the case in America, but the “democratization” of thge primaries in the 1970s changed allo that. Well, I’d say that if you really want reform, we should go back to the days of party bosses picking candidates in “smoke-filled rooms.” If this happened, candidates from both major parties would be less likely to pander to extemists on the left or the right, and they’d spend a lot less money in the process.

Before you complain, remember that the "smoke-filled rooms gave the Democrats FDR and JFK, while the democratic approach gave you Michael Dukakis. The “smoke filled rooms” gave the GOP Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower; the “democratic” approach gave us Bob Dole.

All in all, the BEST way to reform American politics would be for the people to start voting according to the principles of the parties, rather than the personalities of the candidates. IF the American people would simply decide what they beieve in, and vote for the PARTY that best represents those beliefs, then it wouldn’t matter how much money any candidate spent.

10

“They could take a lesson from Jesse Ventura, governor of Minnesota. He took no soft or PAC money at all.”
—Nickrz

You know, A lot of us had a good chuckle when Jessie Ventura got himself elected. But I wonder, what kind of job is he doing? Will the american political machine grind him up?
Appearantly he’s really quite popular in Minnesota.
Would it ever be possible for someone like him to ever be elected to the presidency?
Stranger things have happened.
Any Minnesotans out there who would like to give their opinions? I, for one, would be interested in hearing them.
Peace,
mangeorge

Work like you don’t need the money…
Love like you’ve never been hurt…
Dance like nobody’s watching! …Unknown

11

It might also help if more people DO vote.

12

Lots of pressure groups give the same anount of money to both candidates!

13

I agree with Sterling. If the majority of U.S. citizens voted it would not matter how much money “interest groups” gave to candidates.
Since we do not vote the only things a candidate has to go by are the polls and political contributions.

14

Most “Campaign Financing Reforms” leave me cold. At least with the current system and a sackful of dollars you can be heard. The systems forbidding money to be used in advertising give all the power to those who get to determine qualifications for the “free” advertising. That frightens me far more than the threat of somebody buying an election.