Monday, December 05, 2005
Follow that money to the corrupted absolute power
I've been thinking for a while now that we are in need of a serious political toilet flush. It seems that every day brings new news of corruption, bribes, influence peddling and such and it leaves me wondering if the country has been placed on cruise control while all our elected officials are busy trying to keep themselves out of jail. I'm not pointing fingers either, there is corruption running through both parties starting from small local governments and running all the way to the top.
Connecticut just passed a pretty strict campaign finance reform law. While it is a step in the right direction, it seems that there is some question regarding whether it discriminates against 3rd party candidates.
I don't want those I elect to office to put the concerns of big business or big unions before the concerns of it's average citizens.
I'm also sick to death of having only two candidates to choose from every time I vote. This is a hugely diverse nation and yet we are constantly stuck with trying to choose the lesser of two evils. It makes no sense.
It seems like some sweeping campaign finance reform would do the trick. It would make our elected officials much less indebted to those who would put their own interests before the interests of the country and it would allow a more level playing field for third party candidates.
So, here is an idea (and I freely admit to being woefully uneducated about this subject, so if someone has more knowledge please chime in.) How about we make it legal for every citizen of the US to give a maximum of $200 per year and no more. No donations from PACs or corporations or unions or Santa Claus. Maybe even limit it to donating directly to the candidate rather than through the party?
What do you guys think? Are corruption and lack of choice problems which could be addressed by campaign finance reform?
Connecticut just passed a pretty strict campaign finance reform law. While it is a step in the right direction, it seems that there is some question regarding whether it discriminates against 3rd party candidates.
I don't want those I elect to office to put the concerns of big business or big unions before the concerns of it's average citizens.
I'm also sick to death of having only two candidates to choose from every time I vote. This is a hugely diverse nation and yet we are constantly stuck with trying to choose the lesser of two evils. It makes no sense.
It seems like some sweeping campaign finance reform would do the trick. It would make our elected officials much less indebted to those who would put their own interests before the interests of the country and it would allow a more level playing field for third party candidates.
So, here is an idea (and I freely admit to being woefully uneducated about this subject, so if someone has more knowledge please chime in.) How about we make it legal for every citizen of the US to give a maximum of $200 per year and no more. No donations from PACs or corporations or unions or Santa Claus. Maybe even limit it to donating directly to the candidate rather than through the party?
What do you guys think? Are corruption and lack of choice problems which could be addressed by campaign finance reform?
posted by GodlessMom, 10:14 AM
5 Comments:
dAAve said:
Posted at 4:57 AM
Saur♥Kraut said:
This is a hugely diverse nation and yet we are constantly stuck with trying to choose the lesser of two evils. It makes no sense.
I agree entirely with this post, particularly this comment.
But I wonder about people who argue that too much diversity will result in too many candidates and the dilution of rule by majority?
I think campaign finance reform, if genuine will go a long way to solving the problem. But it needs to allow NO loopholes.
I agree entirely with this post, particularly this comment.
But I wonder about people who argue that too much diversity will result in too many candidates and the dilution of rule by majority?
I think campaign finance reform, if genuine will go a long way to solving the problem. But it needs to allow NO loopholes.
Posted at 6:46 AM
Saur♥Kraut said:
that was badly worded. I meant, I wonder about the argument, not the people. *sigh* no coffee yet this morning...
Posted at 6:56 AM
Lila said:
I'm with you. Sweeping reform, please!
The whole third party thing is so frustrating. I believe that nothing much will change until we shake it up with a third party, but that sure is hard.
Back in the 90s, I joined the New Party. Does anyone remember them?
More recently I briefly joined the Green Party.
Now I'm a Democrat again. It's too frustrating to get involved with third parties that have no chance. *sigh*
The whole third party thing is so frustrating. I believe that nothing much will change until we shake it up with a third party, but that sure is hard.
Back in the 90s, I joined the New Party. Does anyone remember them?
More recently I briefly joined the Green Party.
Now I'm a Democrat again. It's too frustrating to get involved with third parties that have no chance. *sigh*
Posted at 7:04 AM
United We Lay said:
I'm not sure that these problems can really be addressed. I'm tired of having only two candidates as well. You can vote for a third party person, if they happen to be able to run where you live. Finance reform is part of the problem, but the other part is the institutionalized political parties. They're not just a part of campaigns, there a part of everything we do. We are so polarized that I'm not sure a little reform is going to do much. We need an entirely new system, not based on political parties, and we need to start teaching our children that parties are a BAD thing, so that when they start to vote, they won't stand for limited choices, either.
Posted at 7:29 AM
My only comfort is in knowing that some day, somewhere, he will have to pay the price for his actions. I don't wish bad on him -- he's taking care of that himself.