You finally awakened to the fact that America is owned by the corporations. Congrats.
2007-02-15 07:04:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by It's Me 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
There are vast differences between the parties but the fact is that it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to run a campaign. It is the conservative court that says money is speech and it is the Republicans who have blocked campaign reform through trial lawyers.
The answer is simple, take the private money out of the process, when the candidates are made to qualify by being nominated by the citizens and financed by the taxpayer, they are not beholden to the corporations but to their constituancy.
Under a Clean Elections system, candidates hoping to receive public financing must collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. In return, they are paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaign, and agree not to raise money from private sources. Clean Elections candidates who are outspent by privately-funded opponents may receive additional public matching funds.
Because the system is voluntary, it appears not to run afoul of the United States Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo decision, which struck down mandatory spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
Comprehensive Clean Elections systems have been in effect in Arizona and Maine for several years. Not surprisingly, most candidates take the subsidies rather than compete under the resulting handicap of raising voluntary contributions. In Maine, an overwhelming majority (3/4) of state legislators take the government money. In Arizona, the same is true of a majority of the state house, as well as the current Governor (Janet Napolitano). In 2005 Connecticut also passed a Clean Elections bill.
2007-02-15 07:30:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by egg_zaktly 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Someday I hope we will stop seeing each other as democrats, republican, gays, straights, blacks, whites...and just start seeing each other for what we are. Americans. We all have the same basic goals and principles but there is a wedge driven between by stances on abortion or gay marriage. These are not even issues that really guide our country and have only become radical issues in post-Reagan politics. Unfortunately so many take a hard stance on them and shut out the other side. We have a lot more in common than not!
2007-02-15 07:10:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by waitingon2angels 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
thanks for telling what people need to know. The fact that they're no left/right sides of politics. Both are controlled. Hell all the mainstream media is as well controlled by the big banks. That's why most people are fed the lies that the parties speak of. That's why for us to speak differently or ask questions we're either terrorists or conspircy theorists.
Luckily all is not lost. A lot of people are waking up to the horrible truth of how this government operates.
2007-02-15 07:12:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ted S 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Glad to see that I am not the only one who knows this! The name of the political game is...."psychological warfare".
We have been deliberately deceived by sinister, corrupt and greedy so called leaders to deliberately keep "we the people" (sheeple) divided. This is how a N.W.O is being achieved.
Trouble is, people are brainwashed into thinking their party cares about them and their issues, we have now lost our sovereignty, permanently!
2007-02-15 14:41:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by no worries 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are huge difference between Republicans and Democrats. But you know that. You just wanted to throw out this corporate conspiracy B.S. If you want a real education quit listening to your Liberal Arts professors. They've been spewing this nonsense for decades.
2007-02-15 07:09:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by Matt 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Big business and lawyers there you have it. Pack your bags nothing is really going to overwelm you like it will when one world government meets the people.
2007-02-15 07:10:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by Dennis G 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
i do..dems are pro abortion high tax anti gun, pro quota
2007-02-15 07:10:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋