Campaign spending - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-29-2001, 11:15 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 11:43 PM
Campaign spending

All you Americans out there know what I'm saying for sure. Campaign spending is TOO HIGH. Millions of dollars are wasted annually in order to become elected. What's worse is that it's the public's money. Especially when whoever is running is already in office. I think we should have far more strict restrictions on campaign length. Campaigners shouldn't be able to start a year in advance like they do now. It's just obnoxious. I live in Minnesota, and yes, my gorvernor is Jesse Ventura. An embarrassment? Lately, ohhh yes. But one thing I do like about him is that he only spent $700,000 on his campaign, of which none were public dollars. While his cempetitors spent upwards of $4 million. What do you all think about campaign spending?

------------------
Taste is the enemy of art.
__________________

__________________
Lilly is offline  
Old 12-29-2001, 05:32 PM   #2
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 12:43 AM
just look at the new mayor of New York, or the junior senator from New York, or the president of the country, or better yet... ah, nevermind, it's a capitalist society and thus a capitalist government, what do you expect?
__________________

__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-29-2001, 11:42 PM   #3
ONE<br>love, blood, life
 
hippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lookin' for the face I had before the world was made
Posts: 12,144
Local Time: 01:43 AM
I definitely agree that campaign spending has gotten out of hand. And unfortunately since it now takes so much money to campaign successfully in the United States for any office no matter how small...some candidates can't keep up. And I think it is for that reason that most people in office are fairly rich white males, though I am glad to see that the trend is being bucked more and more in recent times.

But the level of financial status one must have in order to campaign at all is way out of hand in my opinion.

------------------
"A Bono approved event is a good event!"

You can dream, so dream out loud!

"The way to be optimistic is not to shut your eyes and close your ears." -Bono

Create Light, Create Unity, Create Joy, CREATE PEACE!
__________________
hippy is offline  
Old 12-30-2001, 02:22 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 03:43 PM
It's a scary state of affairs, for sure. In Australia it is still possible (at least in theory, ha ha) for a person of humble background to become leader of the state or country, via parliament.

But that too is changing. You'll never see a prime minister who is not Sydney or Melbourne-based, not for a long time anyway.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 12-30-2001, 04:40 AM   #5
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 12:43 AM
Campaign spending is out of control? I hadn't noticed. (LOL) Actually, I've been ranting about this issue since 1996.
The USA is a democracy AND embraces a capitalistic economy. Why shouldn't we be allowed to separate the government from the private sector? What does representation have to do with an economic system? My solution sounds socialist, but bear with me. If we allow equal airtime for each candidate, abolish the National Debate Commission, thus allowing more candidates into public debates, and give a facelift to the voter registration laws, we will see a change in the way campaigns are runned.
None of this will happen, so unless someone has a plan to reconstruct the current system (Mr. Ralph Nader, please take me up on this) will have to learn to like it.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 12-30-2001, 05:37 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano:
Campaign spending is out of control? I hadn't noticed. (LOL) Actually, I've been ranting about this issue since 1996.
The USA is a democracy AND embraces a capitalistic economy. Why shouldn't we be allowed to separate the government from the private sector? What does representation have to do with an economic system? My solution sounds socialist, but bear with me. If we allow equal airtime for each candidate, abolish the National Debate Commission, thus allowing more candidates into public debates, and give a facelift to the voter registration laws, we will see a change in the way campaigns are runned.
None of this will happen, so unless someone has a plan to reconstruct the current system (Mr. Ralph Nader, please take me up on this) will have to learn to like it.
I don't think your solution sounds socialist (whatever that means). Indeed when it comes to political representation, priorities must be questioned. I'd suggest we live in a society - the economy is a means for that society to function, not the other way around.

Trouble is (off the subject here a bit), the tendency over the last two decades or so is/has been to try and pretend that government is just a funny sort of business that happens to have its top players publicly elected.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 12-30-2001, 08:28 AM   #7
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Burbank, CA
Posts: 560
Local Time: 12:43 AM
Most campaign contributions are outright bribery.

If one were to use the same tactics in private business that political candidates use to handle their money, they would spend several years behind bars.

Political Action Comittees are money laundering outfits, plain and simple. There are limits on how much a single indiviudual or organization can contribute to a candidate's campaign. So, to get the millions they need, a candidate will simply create a PAC to which people can donate as much money as they want. The PAC has no limits on how much it can contribute - because it is a simple, innocent grassroots political organization, after all ( ). The PAC takes the large contributions, sends them off to the candidate and lets them know who the generous benefactor was.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 12-30-2001).]
__________________
DoctorGonzo is offline  
Old 12-30-2001, 02:44 PM   #8
The Fly
 
Hans Moleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Springfield, VD
Posts: 94
Local Time: 01:43 AM
I'd love to see campaign spending reduced to $1 million total, with no money allowed from non-individuals, and there being a limit of $1000 that each household can give. TV ads and mail ads should be banned, because they only serve as little more than tabloids--manipulative and generally devoid of truth. Presidential candidates should have to resort to public debates, television interviews, and other public appearances. With mass media and the internet, there should be no worries that people will be ignorant of the candidates come election day.

Melon

------------------
"Oh no...my brains."
__________________
Hans Moleman is offline  
Old 12-30-2001, 04:41 PM   #9
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Well, Leave it to me to be the one to break up the harmony of this post.. I'd just be interested in seeing actually what the political affiliations of the posters in this post are?.. I, however, feel that campaign spending shouldn't be limited.. I dont see anything wrong with people contributing to a person they want to see in office.. Yah, I totally agree, that the amounts of money spent are ri-cock-u-lous, sure money helps a lot... but It still doesn't amount to 'money can buy you an election'.. look at ross Perot..

I disagree with the large majority opinion of teh democrats in that 'soft' money should be limited.. because they still want it that the 'unions' can contribute as much as they want... This is just doing the same thing.. unlimited ceilings.. but in the opposite way.. this time in favor of the democrats..

I'm not quite sure what I think about having a set.. 1 million dollar amount for campaigning.. or what not.. I dont quite think i'd object to that, but When it comes down to it, people that are going to have influence, are going to have influence.. regardless of whether it be through money or some other vehicle.
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 12-30-2001, 10:12 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite:
Well, Leave it to me to be the one to break up the harmony of this post.. I'd just be interested in seeing actually what the political affiliations of the posters in this post are?.. I, however, feel that campaign spending shouldn't be limited.. I dont see anything wrong with people contributing to a person they want to see in office.. Yah, I totally agree, that the amounts of money spent are ri-cock-u-lous, sure money helps a lot... but It still doesn't amount to 'money can buy you an election'.. look at ross Perot..

I disagree with the large majority opinion of teh democrats in that 'soft' money should be limited.. because they still want it that the 'unions' can contribute as much as they want... This is just doing the same thing.. unlimited ceilings.. but in the opposite way.. this time in favor of the democrats..

I'm not quite sure what I think about having a set.. 1 million dollar amount for campaigning.. or what not.. I dont quite think i'd object to that, but When it comes down to it, people that are going to have influence, are going to have influence.. regardless of whether it be through money or some other vehicle.
Well Ross Perot is a curious example. His wealth was what gave him the profile he achieved (more so in 1992, perhaps).
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 12-31-2001, 02:19 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 11:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
Most campaign contributions are outright bribery.
Yes, but if you closely examine the legislature presidents pass during a term( as I have the past semester for a term paper) it does not really correspond to this. Parties are so divided that it is amazing that anything is passed at all.
As a US citizen, I think that I should be able to contribute as much money as I want to any canidate I see fit. As long as interest groups exist, and believe me, they are not going anywhere, rediculous amounts of money will be pumped into campaigns. As a tax payer, I check the box on my tax return to donate some of my tax money to election campaigns. Make sure to take noticet this year if you feel one way or the other about it.
__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 12-31-2001, 06:39 AM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:43 AM
I think it comes down to the fact that allowing unlimited spending on campaigns allows people to buy political influence.

And the interests of the people who have a million dollars to donate to a campaign are completely different from the interests of those who don't have ten dollars to donate.

It's in the interests of oil companies for the President to pull out of the Kyoto Treaty. They can donate millions to Bush to make sure acts in their interests.

Guess what? It's not in the interests of people in countries such as Bangladesh for him to abandon Kyoto because those countries are already suffering the effects of global warming - ie experiencing devastating floods every single year. Only they can't write out a million dollar cheque to persuade him to take some notice of their situation. So exactly how much notice do you think he takes of them? And whose interests do you think are more important here - on the one hand we have people's lives at stake...on the other we have oil companies' profits.

Tell me how we can call that system democratic?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 12-31-2001, 05:47 PM   #13
The Fly
 
Hans Moleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Springfield, VD
Posts: 94
Local Time: 01:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite:
I disagree with the large majority opinion of teh democrats in that 'soft' money should be limited.. because they still want it that the 'unions' can contribute as much as they want... This is just doing the same thing.. unlimited ceilings.. but in the opposite way.. this time in favor of the democrats..
This, of course, is a valid concern, but Republicans are doing the same thing: they want to limit union contributions, but want unlimited individual contributions. Hence, rather than the business donating millions to a campaign, the CEO, as "an individual," can donate millions. And they know that Democrats don't have this same push.

I like my model the best. Forget the $1 million...that is negotiable. My model would eliminate all companies and interest groups--corporations, unions, the Christian Coalition, NOW, etc.--and severely limit the amount that individuals can give so that one person or interest cannot dominate a political party. If one wants true campaign reform, they cannot create a model that obviously is made with the intention of just hurting your opponent.

Melon

------------------
"Oh no...my brains."
__________________
Hans Moleman is offline  
Old 12-31-2001, 07:16 PM   #14
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hans Moleman:
This, of course, is a valid concern, but Republicans are doing the same thing: they want to limit union contributions, but want unlimited individual contributions. Hence, rather than the business donating millions to a campaign, the CEO, as "an individual," can donate millions. And they know that Democrats don't have this same push.



This is exactly what I said, it's a two way street.

Happy New Year Ya'll.

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 01-02-2002, 06:09 AM   #15
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 12:43 AM
An obvious question, one that has not but SHOULD be asked:

What would be the effects of severely limiting a person's ability to campaign or to solicit campaign funds?

Well...

Let's say we ignore the First Amendment and eliminate a politician's ability to use the mass media advertising of TV, mail, newspaper, etc. The immediate result is that the press becomes supreme arbiter of whose voice is heard. The press will choose who wins the election.

(You could say that already happens. But Ross Perot buying airtime in 1992 proved that it's possible to attract a sizable number of votes and be a political outsider. Making it impossible to buy airtime would have hurt Perot, not helped him.)

That's no good, so let's require "equal time"; let's again ignore the Constitution and require the press to spend an equal amount of time on each candidate. Each candidate is invited to the debates, allowed to write essays of equal length for the major papers, etc. The U.S. already has a dozen or so unqualified and - to be honest - wacky nobodies who run for President. Require "equal time" of the press, and you'll have those guys flooding the airwaves with irrelevancies, and you'll attract even more people who want nothing more than to "run for President" just to publicize their pet concerns. Instead of too little debate, you'll have too much, and genuine issues of concern will be drowned out by the noise.

Of course, one could limit the "equal time" requirement to those candidates that actually stand a chance of winning the election, but that brings us back to the DNC and the GOP.


Looking at campaign funding, I see two choices: limit individual spending, and limit spending by a group.

Limiting individual spending is fruitless. If a person can only give $1000 to a candidate, but a group can give an unlimited amount, he will simply form a small group (on paper, probably asking a few friends to join him) and give what he wanted to via the beginning. Limiting what he can give to a group to prevent that loophole would cause serious damage to minority groups that work for the legal protection of an entire race on the backs of those few who can donate to the cause.

Finally, limiting what a group can give thows out the metaphorical baby with the bathwater. PAC's are gone, sure, but so are the political powers of the AARP and every other politically-minded organization. In fact, it destroys one of the bedrocks of American political change: a handful of individuals with the same concerns forms an organization which finds and financially supports candidates that champion their causes.

The bottom line is this: there is no way to prevent the "bribery" of corporations and the wealthy without severely limiting the rights of individuals to create organizations like the NRA and the AARP and to financially support political candidates throught those groups. There's no way to keep individual freedom intact with those suggestions.

While spending caps look great on paper, the effects seem to be disasterous. It seems that very few people think of the long-term and large-scale effects of these "reforms", but that doesn't mean the effects will not occur.
__________________

__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com