Campaign Finance Reform.

[JSavage]

I am posting this for the purpose of drawing attention to the possibility that the people, when organized as a group, can be shut out of the campaign process by removing their right to fund the candidate of their choice. Under the currently pending bill, candidates for office and proponents of causes we hold dear may be restricted as to what money they can accept from groups that support or oppose certain legislation. These so called reforms are intended to limit the campaigning ability of these candidates to "equalize" the process.

I personally believe that this takes away from the more popular candidate and makes him/her less attractive in favor of the less popular candidate.

Oppose these reforms in favor of your right to support the candidate of your choice, the way you see fit.

[MrJim911]

"""I personally believe that this takes away from the more popular candidate and makes him/her less attractive in favor of the less popular candidate."""

I belive that's the point. So one candiate doesn't have a warchest the size of Bill Gates checkbook while the lesser candidate have the amount of MY checkbook. (not alot)

Financial equality of the candiates is important and hasn't happened since I've been alive. Each candidate should be given a certain amount of money to work with during election times. Look at out current Dubya...He's bought and paid for by the oil companies. Just think if him and Gore and Alan Keyes and ALL of the candidates had to deal with the same size pocketbook, we might have a different guy running the country right now. Just a thought... :)

[JSavage]

Doesn't that hold free speach in contempt? I would hope I had the right to donate as much as I want to the candidate of my choice in order to assure he/she is elected. Likewise, if an issue I feel strongly about is at risk, the only tool I have to assist my cause may be my check book. I would be in political heaven if a candidate could be elected based on his/her qualities alone; unfortunatelly, many people play the party line and the only thing that can scoop that is the mighty $.

[MrJim911]

Since a presidential candidates warchest would most likely be in the tens of millions even with campaign finance reform I think you could give all the money you wanted without a problem. The problem exists when certain types of people/companies/organizations donate millions of dollars at a time and expect certain favors because of it if their person wins. And if those favors are not done after election then they fight tooth and nail against all the bills you (the president) want passed that have nothing to do with them.

This includes religious, pharmaceutical, oil, and whatever kind of organization you can think of. If there was a limit to what all the candidates could spend then this problem would not exist and they could do their job without threats. If somehow the money you wanted to donate exceeded what they could except (impossible) then do other things for your candidate... Free speech for your candidate can take many forms.

[DelC]

Originally posted by JSavage
I personally believe that this takes away from the more popular candidate and makes him/her less attractive in favor of the less popular candidate.

Yeah, the candidate is more popular to whom?? Lobby and special interest groups?? How can mid-America defend their rights or beliefs against such groups?? If there was a group, twice as big as any group you currently support, with twice the bank account of your group, with ideas and lobbing that opposed your group, would you feel the same way about that group’s free speech and their freedom to spend as much as they want to defeat your group?? In a lawless society, big dogs eat little dogs!! Even in a modern society, the big dogs still chew on the little ones.
-----------------
MrJim911,

Not only would you have to limit what a candidate could spend on an election, but you would also have to limit what others could spend on his election. I.e., the political party, private groups or a private person could run adds in their own names for the benefit of electing a candidate. And, don’t forget the political influence the lobby groups have on a one to one basis during non-election years. You will never be able to take money out of politics. That would be like trying to take moisture out of water.

[JSavage]

Don't forget, unlike the drug lobby or the oil lobby, many lobbying groups are simply collections of citizens that combine their resources for a mutual cause. That is how the individual gets heard. I don't have 1.5 Million to give but when my $100 gets pooled with everyone elses, then we have 5 Million; that can make a difference.

[DelC]

Ok, the drug lobby or the oil lobby is simply a collection of citizens, rich citizens with 1.5 million each to pool, combining their resources for a mutual cause to get heard. If they were against your groups interest, do you think this would be fair?? This exactly the state of affairs today in politics.

[JSavage]

touche DelC. I'm not sure that your idea of a corporate lobby is the same as mine. A great deal of corporate lobby money comes directly from the corporation itself. I prefer to think that in a TRUE reform, only non-profits would be allowed to donate.
In retort of your position that I would differ in light of another group with more money than mine, I say this, My group is the National Rifle Association. Handgun Control Inc. has been raising a great deal of money to stiffle the efforts of responsible gun owners. My job is to donate more and make their donations a simple waste of money. Let them spend as they will. We'll spend more. And when we can't compete anymore, we'll lose and won't need a lobby. Until then, I give my money to my group and let the rest fend for themselves.

[DelC]

Yeah, I knew your group was NRA. I was just trying to get you to think about how politics really work. But, the fact remains; you can never pass enough laws to get around the money issue. What’s to stop the big corporations from starting non-profit groups to support their cause? A lot of them already have such groups in place or support groups behind the scenes? Who do you think bankrolls Handgun Control Inc. If the NRA and Handgun Control Inc. would stop fighting each other and pool their resources, I’m sure they could get the guns out of the hands of criminals and children for a lot less bucks than they are spending to fight each other. Especially with all the technology that’s available today. I guess they both must feel they are the big dog.

Ok, I'm done. Someone else take it from here. Cheers.

[JSavage]

well said DelC, well said. I agree that there are serious problems with the system. I don't like seeing the little guy squashed because he hasn't got enough money, likewise, I don't like seeing the "G" regulating who we can donate to. I have a great reform plan but no time to lay it out right now. It involves a lot of changes, though.