This seems it would encourage PAC money and our president would be owned to the highest donor.
I think we should elect someone that knows what a mortgage, cost of a gallon of milk, pays social security, and struggle with everyday life like the most of us....What do you think?
2007-02-12 01:19:47 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I know thats a lot of money. What happens to the every day guy that could possibly be a better choice for President but doesn't have the money? Guess you have to be rich to be President in the US.
2007-02-12 01:28:20 · answer #1 · answered by shorty 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel the same way you do.
Someone had the idea of debates on public television only.
If no tv, then a two sided flyer with candidates name, office running for. No listing of qualifications, religion, wife's name, kid's name or party affiliation. On the other side would be where the candidate stands on certain issues. Those would be mailed out to every voter according to district, etc.. No more than say 3 flyers in one election year. No more signs cluttering up the landscape either.
Make it fair for everyone.
Easier said than done.
2007-02-12 09:39:06 · answer #2 · answered by davethenayber 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes that is very unfortunate. Its too bad that in 1983 Reagan changed the equal-time rule so that political debates not hosted by a media station are considered news events thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates.
If the equal air time rule was still used the way it was meant to, many other candidates would have a chance.
2007-02-12 09:27:21 · answer #3 · answered by aslongasitsfunky 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you want the money out of politics, you have to take the overregulation and the money out of government. People who run for office typically have either an overwhelming desire to tell others how to live, or wealthy entities to whom they owe favors backing them, or they want the cushy job of getting paid to dole out government goodies. If you take away the government goodies, you take away two out of three of the incentives. Taking away the power to overregulate would get rid of the third incentive.
A return to a constitutionally limited government would make it so nobody would run for the reasons of a payoff, a cushy job, or the power to boss people around. We would then be stuck with people who were truly willing to sacrifice and serve for a limited period of time and then return to regular civilian life. Career politicians grow government because they have to "bring home the bacon" in order to get re-elected. They also defeat basic principles of democracy by giving some districts/states disproportionate respresentation due to the choice committee assignments (which are instrumental in giving out the government goodies and ensuring favorable regulatory decisions).
These are perverse incentives that the current system encourages and perpetuates. It also invites bribery, vote-buying, and campaign contributions in general by entities (corporations, special interest groups, and sometimes even individuals) who want something from the government, whether passage of a law or regulation, prevention or repeal of a law or regulation, or a government contract.
It's all about the money and the ability to abuse power to affect markets, competition, and gaining unfair advantages via the force of law. When government is limited to its constitutionally-enumerated powers, then the money and power incentives will be greatly reduced if not eliminated, and it won't take $50 million to get elected because so few people will want to run for offices where they can't dole out favors or taxpayer money, or have their egos stroked.
2007-02-12 10:41:13 · answer #4 · answered by Captain Obvious! 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you want freedom of speech you've got to let other people have it too, including people running for office. I don't think the money's a problem. I think the problem is that people are stupid enough to base their vote on what they saw on television commercials, which is where most of the campaign money ends up going.
2007-02-12 10:22:33 · answer #5 · answered by Faeldaz M 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, its not fair at all. The best candidate may not win just because they lack the corporate sponsorship.
2007-02-12 10:37:42 · answer #6 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its all about the money. no one really votes. they might as well have a shredder at the voteing machine . I've voted since i was able to vote.there will never be a common man as president they will all be lawyers
2007-02-12 09:25:09 · answer #7 · answered by wofford1257 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Got another way? How about campaign finance reform? No, that limits freedom of speech. I don't know another way to do this.
2007-02-12 09:23:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not fair at all. But then again what is fair in this world.. right?
2007-02-12 09:28:55 · answer #9 · answered by Doug F 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no its not fair but thats the way it is money talks bull **** walks
2007-02-12 09:27:12 · answer #10 · answered by harley w 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋