Or should we make them pay it out of their own pocket? Should we limit the number of gifts that a politician can receive for election funds? This way, the over influx of ads will tell us which ones are the rich slobs that shouldn't be in government.
2007-01-06 05:09:01 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't know. I'm thinking that candidates shouldn't be allowed to campaign on the media until Labor Day and then anyone who has a certain number of signatures can have a certain amount of money--and that's all they can spend. I think a certain number of TV and radio spots should be given to these candidates. Maybe then we wouldn't be inundated with ads until we can't stand it by the time the election rolls around and candidates won't have to be rich to run.
And why are all rich people "slobs" to you? Why is it wrong to be wealthy?
2007-01-06 05:16:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I just don't see that there is an easy answer to this problem. It is easy to say we should limit this or that but aren't WE part of the problem. I see perhaps thousands of people on YA here that would donate to a campaign in time or money based on party affiliation alone. I believe that the fact that someone would spend millions upon millions of dollars to get elected to a job that pays back a million or so in salary over the term is a clear sign that something is rotten. There is no sane person that believes these politicians are spending these vast sums because they truly believe they will be the best possible representative of the people of thier state or the nation. Any and every person that actually makes it to the top in a state or national election is either wealthy or backed by someone who is extremely wealthy, so nothing we do will give us any assurance that not only the wealthy will win an election. What we need is the improbable, we need a grassroots effort to elect a candidate that WILL do what is best for the nation. All of us know at least one person that would make a good senator or even president, one that is not in politics but would do his or her duty and step up to head the nation. The local hardware store owner, a teacher, a mechanic or anyone you know that is honest and cares enough to take the job and all the risks of humiliation it carries. No sane person would want the job, but someone has to do it, has to set the tone for how this nation is to move forward. Anything, even failure, would be better than politics as usual. I highly doubt that most of our first dozen or so presidents were what we today would call politicians, they may have been local leaders, upstanding church members, know honest local farmers and businessmen. Do we not have these same people today? I think we do, I know some of them, and the only reason to not put a name on the ballot is that under the current way of things they stand no chance, none at all unless we get that grass roots effort mentioned earlier. It seems we want more glamor and glitz, more fancy oratory, good looks, great speaking ability, when what we really need is a man of substance and principle. I know that it sounds like I am dreaming here, but this nation has had its fair share of heroes in the past, and I know that all of you could think of at least one person that fits that bill. good luck, God bless.
2007-01-06 13:45:21 · answer #2 · answered by avatar2068 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The candidates that we are matching funds for are ones who are running against the ones funded by big business. They have the voter to thank when they win not the company's. Guess whose side they will vote for. The candidates are only allowed to collect 5 dollars from each supporter, which makes us all have an equal voice in government, compared to the guy who received a million from Wall Mart, and they want to open a new store in your backyard, whose vote do you think they can count on.
2007-01-06 13:45:16 · answer #3 · answered by Old guy 124 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Public funding of elections is the only way to get the crooks out of the process and allow lawmakers to spend their time making laws, not raising money and doing favors to get the money, even the honest ones are forced to compromise because their opponents will drown them in a sea of false advertising that they will not be able to defend. Our society cherishes sound bites and slogans, because it's easier than studying the candidates positions. A sad commentary.
2007-01-06 13:17:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
We should either dispose of the matching funds, or make them the exclusive source of campaign funding!
My vote goes to makeing them the exclusive source!
Then every canidate would have the same chance and they would have to stand on the issues, not on how much money they could raise!
2007-01-06 14:53:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no and there should be a cap on how much they are allowed to spend on being elected and who can contribute.
edit. eliminate media ads they rarely are used to support a candidates views,just bashing opponents. make the people research the candidates and issues.
2007-01-06 13:19:44 · answer #6 · answered by kissmy 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I haven't checked off the matching fund box on my 1040 for years now - it's one way that we as tax payers can have some control over the budget!
2007-01-06 13:40:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Since politicians have their own agenda and not the best interest of the people, yes they should. They have it too easy and are not held accountable.
2007-01-06 13:15:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Sounds good to me.
The rich ones will just find another way to cheat though, lol.
2007-01-06 13:13:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
no
pay out of pocket
yes
2007-01-06 13:12:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋