A question from an outsider.

According to CNN Bush has SPENT 163.7 MILLION, Kerry 148.9 MILLION so far on this campaign and there's still 3 months left.  300+ Million so far!!

This does not include whatever the Congress and Sentate races will cost.  I think I heard it approaches 1/2 BILLION

Does the US get good value for their $$.

Does a billion ensure issues are discussed and democracy is well served. or are you reduced to mud slinging and name calling.
Wouldn't a Billion be better spent of healthcare, tax cuts or even 3rd world aid.

That's why I'm in favor of publicly funded campaigns...and the right-wingers AREN'T!  To them, money is the light of the world, to me it is just property.  If you let property control the political process, you end up with a plutocracy.

WHAT!!!!   You mean there are ISSUES???  (<<--sarcasm)

"Que est mas macho" (please forgive the spelling, I can say it, just not spell it ;))


"quien es mas macho" (who is more macho, you are frenchizing, lol). 

Your sarcasm is always so refreshing!  I have no idea what the solution is, but our political system s...s

I agree with all of the above. The U.S.-the best democracy money can buy.





Cat

I agree with all of the above. The U.S.-the best democracy money can buy.





Cat


Wish I had Halliburton's $$$

Wish I had Halliburton's $$$


Or John Kerry's money...or his wife's money.  Both sides have way too much money to spend.  It is ridiculous.  $300 million could be spent elsewhere and it would be much less annoying to the rest of us.

That's why I'm in favor of publicly funded campaigns...and the right-wingers AREN'T!  To them, money is the light of the world, to me it is just property.  If you let property control the political process, you end up with a plutocracy.


Maxwell, Maxwell...

Publically-funded campaigns should be considered a violation of the US Constitution.  Why?  because we have any number of candidates who run on platforms that are religiously based, and as such we would have government funds promoting religious causes, which is a big no-no.  Are you going to tell Pat Robertson that he can not get public funds if he decides, for example, to run for Dog Catcher?  His whole platoform is based on religion.  Ditto for any number of other candidates.  Do you want the government to fund David Dukes' next campaign?  How will the government decide who is "worrthy" of getting money, and how much?

Please spend my tax $$$ on schools or prisons or a pork project dedicated to the memory of Senator Byrd.

Neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on campaign spending.  In fact as far as those pesky "527 funds" Democratic-leaning folks have raised far more money than Repub-leaning groups.

As the Supreme Court said in its ruling on Campaign Finance Reform "Money is like a river and no law is going to stop it flowing toward the campaign of one's choice".  I disagree with the CFR law because in my opinion it infringes on the right to free association and free speech, but the Supreme Court did not consult with me on that matter.  However, the Supreme Court also stated in its opinion that the CFR law would be a failure if anybody thought that it would curtail campaign spending.  And now in 2004 we see that their prediction was correct.

I have no problem with unlimited campaign spending, with the following exceptions that I think would pass muster with the Constitution.  These prohibitions would be:

1.  Donations from companies or unions prohibited completely.

2.  Donations from somebody who can not vote for a candidate are prohibited (i.e., I as a citizen of Ohio can not donate money to the guy running for Senator in Mississippi).

3.  "Soft money" allocations to a given candidate must adhere to (2).

These rules would help to keep interlopers out of the campaign process and would strngthen the principles of Federalism.