Should America bring greater campaign reform about?

Question

In the 2004 Presidential care, a total of $4.94 was spent PER VOTE. This translates to a more than 1/2 BILLION dollars for the race. I think this is wholly unnecessary. What do you think?

Wow, typo, typo...should read...

In the 2004 Presidential race, a total of $4.94 was spent PER VOTE. This translates to more than 1/2 BILLION dollars for the race. I think this is wholly unnecessary. What do you think?

Answer 1

I agree with you. We all know that it's no longer "let the best person win". It's now "let the person with the most money win". Money and media determine the outcome, not the qualifications of the candidates.

Answer 2

We have the best Government money can buy. We need the best Government working for “we the people”. A Government not beholdin’ to Lobbyists.

Some say we need Lobbyists to speak for the little guy who has no voice in our government – B.S! If our elected officials were doing their jobs, the little guy would have a voice.

Campaign funding should have set limits and no advertising, other than NPR and Public TV. This would level the playing field and perhaps we might have candidates who actually intend on serving their nation rather than their pocketbooks.

Answer 3

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about? In America, more money is spent in a year advertising potato chips than on political campaigns. In my opinion, political donations should be unlimited but each and every doner should have his or her name published on the internet immediately upon reciept of the donation. Political donations are speech and we deserve to know who is speaking.

If a candidate raises ten million dollars from only six sources and another raises eight million dollars from three million sources we should be able to see that. What you would see today, is that most corporations donate to both parties as a hedge. A few billionairs support organizations that do their dirty work and in some instances, a lot of money is raised from relatively few wealthy celebrities.

A candidate should be able to raise plenty of money if he apeals to enough voters. Tax revenue should never be given to candidates under any circumstances.


.

Answer 4

I know this is going to give a lot of people heart palpitations - but actually the American public would be best served if radio/newspaper/television time was bought with taxpayer dollars. Spread equally between each valid candidate. NO CORPORATE DONATIONS. No commercial donations.

Businesses are not PEOPLE and absolutely should NOT be allowed to donate vast sums of money in the political arena. Since they DO....why would they NOT expect favors in return??

It's common sense, really.

THEN - there would be regular people running, not just the filthy rich.

I'd pay for it, happily!!

Answer 5

Yes there should be much more stringent rules for accepting any type of contribution.

Maybe then we would not have foriegn counties buying our presidential candidates and/or the presidency for nights in the White House.

And the penalties for accepting such contributions should become a felony and prevent unworthy candidates from wasting our time. Sorry Hillary.

Answer 6

No donations should be allowed then no one buys a vote. The government should send out resumes of the candidates and two months before elections TV channels donate time for debates once a week to include all candidates.

Answer 7

I think it is appalling that we spend so much money on campaigning. It should be illegal, there are people that have don't have a place to live, and don't have medical care. Lets make the race about who can raise enough money to donate to help those people, or for children's causes.