Remember when elections were about counting the votes instead of counting the money?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money

The choice is clear: we can have public campaign financing and ban private contributions, or we can lose our democracy to the monied interests.

Truthsayer, paying taxes isn't fair to people who don't want roads repaired or schools operated either. Since society needs those things, we just ignore those nutjobs. The same thing goes with elections and campaigns.

genmalia, that $6.5 million he raised from working class people is a small fraction of what he raised from rich people.

We used to know what working class people believed in by who they VOTED for. Because in the voting booth, everyone is equal.

What's wrong with that system?

Answer 1

Actually, your choice is the wrong one.

Private contributions are free speech.

If I like candidate "A", and want to tell others, that is free speech.
If I like candidate "A", and want to use my money to put up a sign to tell others, that is free speech.
If I like candidate "A", and want to meet with others who like candidate "A", that is free assembly.
If I like candidate "A", and want to join with others, and pool our money, to put up a BIG sign to tell others, or put up a BIG ad on television to tell others, that is free assembly and speech.

Why do you want to ban free assembly and free speech?

Public funding means public control.

How exactly would you "ban" private contributions...Fines...Jail?

How would you enforce your ban...With men with guns?

Your way of thinking is socialist totalitarianism...enforced by men with guns.

Answer 2

the rationalization why you are able to desire to vote is as a results of the fact the earnings is larger than the fee. Your vote does count type, in simple terms very small. it incredibly is extra effective in case you artwork and set up and get lots of folk to vote with you, or promise to vote for somebody if somebody else does or asks you to. The electoral college isn't frustrating. all of us vote for electors, who're pledged to vote for the candidate we chosen to vote for. So your vote does count type. the only project is that the variety of electors in each and every state is chosen so as that small states get slightly an benefit. California basically has 50 electors, Wyoming as 2, yet Wyoming is a lot smaller than 2/50. So, it is as a results of the fact the electoral college is unfold erratically around the states that there is a bias in direction of small states. In theory, you are able to truly desire to layout an electoral systlem that had no longer something to do with states, that in simple terms picked a million elector for anybody thousand human beings or some thing. yet many human beings say that that bias is properly a stable element, because of the fact different sensible the enormous states could tension the small states to resign their community custom, customs and strategies. to illustrate, enormous states could make a regulation asserting you are able to no longer smoke in bars, make your guy or woman liquor or pay attention to bluegrass song.

Answer 3

I know it sounds like lots of money, but I'm not sure why you referenced this particular article?

I think it is pretty amazing that ordinary people are willing to contribute a collective $6.5 million to Obama's campaign from their own paychecks, $5, $20 or $50 at a time. That is amazing, and truly a representation of what working-class people believe in.

This is public campaign financing at it's heart and soul!

Answer 4

no, I was born after 1946


the second part
again, we lost democracy to the chosen ones after 1946


the problem with this country is, the hard working taxpaying average citizen is nothing more than a pawn to the power hungry, money hungry chosen ones. they manipulate us and BS us to the point that we fight each other over issues the chosen one's invent. who's worse, rich republicans or rich democrats? doesn't matter, they all have their own selfish agendas. one just puts on a better show of caring for the people, but it's still, rich man dances, poor man pays the band.

poor mans core value, care for you fellow man.
rich mans core value, MONEYMONEYMONEY screw the people.

Answer 5

I think it all goes back to the Reagan era. He was our first actor president who really worked to manipulate his message and appeal to the common masses. Reagan was responsible for reversing the Fairness Doctrine which was a basic tenet of the licensed broadcasting industry in the United States that ensured reasonable opportunity for the airing of opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. Without possibility of free equal airtime, it became all about the money.

Reagan was the first modern proponent of tax breaks for the rich, trickle down economics, privatization of government services and deregulation that got us into the mess we are in today.

Answer 6

Yes, I do remember, and I also remember when Americans actually believed in elections and thought their votes were counted. So I couldn't agree with you more on this issue. I believe it is one of the most crucial issues our country needs to address because so many bad consequences ripple out from the mess it is now.

Answer 7

I am 60 years old and it hasn't been that way in my life time. So don't expect any changes. It has been about the money for over 100 years. Campaigning is not cheap.

Answer 8

That's not very democratic for those of us who don't want to contribute to ANY campaign....

Longhair, the notion of a "need" for political advertisements in the same vein as the "need" for roads and bridges is crazy.

Answer 9

I do not remember when this was. I agree with you in part, but I am conflicted on this issue. I don't think there is an easy fix.

Answer 10

Nope.