politics

[mojo]

i don't think i have ever seen a candidate that i support in full. they all suck. let's put them in a crate and send them to mars.

you know what happens in politics? you have people that start out young and full of beans (whatever that means...i heard it in a movie once)....they have ideas and want to do well. then later on, they just start selling out to get elected.

hopefully i can afford my island soon.

[topane]

Originally posted by mojorisin
<SNIP> young and full of beans (whatever that means...
/me makes farting noises with armpits

[jase71]

Unfortunately, politics today is all about money. Money buys you reelection. Money buys you power. Money buys you influence.

One of the first things I tend to try and find out about a candidate is where he/she gets his campaign contributions from. The source and amount of them will tell you more about how that person will act in office than a dozen debates or media guides.

Find me someone who swears off soft money and large contributions, and there's a good chance I'll vote for them, regardless of party. At least then I know that they'll vote the way THEY think they should, not the way they're paid to. They may not always be right, but at least they've got their own ideas.

We really need to take the money out of politics.

[plutarcho]

Ok, let's look at it this way:

You are brilliant and have great ideas, and they might even work. You are a great guy/gal and you are going to do good things. Hell, you are a saint.

If you are going to do any good, you need to get elected. Money==Election. If you don't believe this, look at McCain who was the only one with balls enough to say that he wouldn't support the corn subsidies. Look at Liddy, or any body else who has sworn off big money and big interests.

So, if you want to do good, you've got to take the money. Note that this is not an end game, because you need to get re-elected to do more good stuff, so you've to keep taking it.

Remember, there are no bad politicians, only stupid voters.

[jase71]

Money only equals elections when everyone has access to it.

If no one had access to soft money, we'd have elections without the incredible amounts of cash floating around, and reduce the numbers of sellouts in office.

The key to making it work is first to remove the soft money and large contributions, and second, to make sure the playing field stays level.

That will require vigilance. It doesn't end with simply passing a bill banning soft money.

[plutarcho]

Politics requires resources. Money is part of the equation, but the playing field will never be level. Parties provide many of these resources. The bigger the party, the greater the resources (like a voter base and a label). But some random working guy can't devote the time and energy to run for office (most people have to work to eat), and therefore the playing field isn't level.

I agree that outlawing soft money and the like is ineffective. We currently have laws on the books to control certain types of campaign fundraising and that doesn't stop some politicians from violating them (Gore and Clinton come to mind).

We could go the way of many countries and provide more government funding of campaigns including free air time for candidates' commercials. But, there are a lot of complications involved in this.

There is the question of whether limiting advertising by private entities like the NOW, the Religious Right, Labor Unions, and the ACLU is a violation of their First Amendment Rights (and it probably is).

If there were an easy way to legislate this type of stuff, I think we would have seen it.