Campaign finance reform has become a key issue in U.S. politics at the
local and, especially, national level. Should campaign finance laws be
changed? Why or why not? If so, how?
American electoral policy has historically been tied into a 2 party
system based on ideology. Unless contributions in equal amounts are
made in support of this system, soft-money contributions smack of
influence-peddling.
I disagree. If you are not allowed to express yourself with your
funds, your First Amendment rights are being stifled. If you want to
contribute an unlimited amount to any candidate, that is your decision
and should be respected.
Subject: Campaign Finance From: grubaugh Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:09 PM
Yes, let's make everybody equal. Why don't we just have a lottery and
the winner gets to be president?
Subject: Campaign finance From: Langford Date: 04 Apr 2000 4:54 AM
But would anyone buy the lottery tickets?!!
Subject: Campaign Finance Reform From: Jeff Satterfield Date: 04 Apr 2000 9:33 AM
The bluster about Campaign Finance Reform is more tangential hogwash.
One of the poll questions at this site was whether primaries stifle
democracy. What stifles democracy is the fact that individuals have
limits on how much they can give their candidates, which makes all the
"soft money" and money laundering necessary. What they should do is
simply blow the field wide open. On both sides of the political
spectrum are people with money. Let whomever wants to shovel the money
to their candidates, and let the people speak through their donations.
I agree with you completely. Supporting your candidate is a right of
free speach. I think that INDVIDUAL U.S. CITIZENS should be able to
give as much money as they wish and full disclosure (on the internet)
should be required.
Subject: Campaign Finance Reform From: Clark Date: 04 Apr 2000 7:32 AM
Unlike your introduction to this "thread", campaign finance reform has
NOT been a key issue to most voters. It IS a key issue to the media
and AL Gore. Why is it a key issue to those two? Power, pure and
simple.Mitch McConell, Senator from KY, has the best "reform" idea:
unlimited contributions but, everyone gets listed no matter the size of
the donation. This way we can also get rid of "soft" money if we want
to. H0w come this idea was not listed in your "voting booth"?Also, I
depsise any "reform" that would give the media more control.
How would changing Campaign Finance Laws give "the media" more control?
You're proposing to have it completely open(excepting foreign which
isn't always easy to control) why not go the other route and shut
campaign contributions down, especially huge contributions, based on
ideology?
Subject: CFR From: Troy Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:54 AM
Amen Clark, Gore is for it, as long as it doesnt keep Budhist Monks
from contributing! The hypocrite #@^\+**!
The only way to make CFR fair is to decriminalize it. Open the
sluices. Let every American have the freedom to speak, as a previous
message said, and put no limits on it. Any attempt to stifle the
donations to one side or the other will only necessitate and encourage
underhanded maneuvreing. Restore every citizen's right for limitless
donatins -- but strengthen AND ENFORCE laws about keeping foreign money
from influencing and corrupting American elections.
The only way to make CFR fair is to decriminalize it. Open the
sluices. Let every American have the freedom to speak, as a previous
message said, and put no limits on it. Any attempt to stifle the
donations to one side or the other will only necessitate and encourage
underhanded maneuvreing. Restore every citizen's right for limitless
donatins -- but strengthen AND ENFORCE laws about keeping foreign money
from influencing and corrupting American elections. As for "special
interests": I tend to suspect those who rail loudest about special
interests are deepest in their pockets.
No restrictions should exist on campaign contributions. In a free
democracy, the government has no business limiting what its citizens
may spend or throw away on candidates for publi office. On the contrary
the existing restrictions have been counterproductive be discouraging
"dark horses" (e.g., Eugene McCarthy) and by creating the mess we now
have with "soft money". Whatever abuses may have existed in the
financing of campaigns prior to the "reforms" seem to have paled in
comparison to what we've witnessed in the past two to three decades.I'd
much prefer to see no restriction on amounts of contributions. Rather,
I'd like to see disclosure of who's substantially financing whom. If
Bill Gates, for example, were to seek to buy a candidate's election,
I'd say, "Let him try." I just want to know in what pockets candidates
might be.
Subject: Campaign Finance From:Jon T. Finley Date: 04 Apr 2000 2:04 AM
Campaign finance has to be reformed. The system is closingany form of
the ability, other than the prescribed candidates, to be able to have a
free, open election.Soft money should be eliminated, and a shorter
primarysytem should be adopted. This will be a very crucial decision in
the future
Subject: Campaign Finance Reform From:James T. Watson Date: 04 Apr 2000 2:30 AM
Campaigns for political office should be financed by taxes, the amount
being determined by the office level, that is, local, state or
national. However, each office seeker can spend whatever he or she
wants of their own personal funds. We have to devise a system where the
quality of a candidates arguments are the determanent in an election,
not the quanity of money spent to elect!
Subject: Campaign Finance Reform From: Robert Date: 04 Apr 2000 8:39 AM
NO! I do not want my tax dollars supporting the campaign of someone
whom I do not want elected. For example, why should my tax dollars go
to the support of another "Slick Willie" when I can directly support a
candidate that is not a draft-dodging, amoral, liar? CFR is best
handled through immediate and total disclosure.
Subject: Campaign Finance Reform From:Larry Vipond Date: 04 Apr 2000 8:27 PM
The United States Constitution has it wrong...we have a government of,
for and by special interestd. I agree with Mr. James T. Watson that
camapigns should be financed by public funds. Congress has been sold to
the highest bidders far too long.
Subject: Campaign finance reform? From: Seeker of Wisdom Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:54 PM
We must be very careful about reforming campaign finance. All this
knee-jerk reaction is not a healthy way to aproach this issue. We are
tip toeing arround the 1st ammendment with any further restrictions.
It is by far more important to find out how severely the laws were and
are being broken by both parties and of course especially the illegal
and foriegn money that was raised by Clinton/Gore and the DNC in 1996.
Lets enforce the laws we have before we do something rash that we later
regret. Remember PAC money is from the American citizens who join
organizations to speak for them. The kind of reform McCain was
speaking of and now Gore (laughably) is speaking of would empower the
media, labor unions, and teachers unions even more. Believe me, that
is not a good thing. P.S. I heard someone recently say "If Gore was
genuine with this issue he'd turn himself in". It may have been McCain.
Subject: Campaign Finance Reform From: Dee Date: 08 Aug 2000 3:20 PM
If the people running can spend any amount of their own monies, then
the richer ones will win. And then the rich will run the country, just
like they do now.Why not have a "no monies" reform and have the runners
judged on what they can do and how they perform because that is what
they will have to do if they win.
Subject: Campaign finance From:Dorothy Date: 08 Aug 2000 10:46 AM
Dear Robert, With all the deceit and crookedness plus possible
acts of treason along with lying under oath and sex perversion in the
work place I wouldn't put it past a certain influencial few to grab our
tax dollars to bolster the candidates of their choice. Heaven help us
but I fear we will be stuck with Al ( I drank a lot of coffee) Gore and
Hillary ( I have always been a Yankee fan) Clinton.
I believe that the current efforts at Campaign Finance Reform will lead
to a system where the Democratic Party will have a huge, unfair
advantage in elections. The vast majority of the news media are liberal
Democrats and support liberal Democrat candidates (they periodically
also side with liberal Republican candidates, or, as in the case of
John McCain, they side with the least conservative Republican candidate
during the primary, knowing they will abandon him for the liberal
Democrat in the general election).Now, because of this bias, if soft
money is banned, Republicans will have no way to respond to the
extremely slanted news coverage in favor of the Democrats. Also, it
should be noted that the labor unions would be exempt from the soft
money ban, and they also support liberal Democrats. The ultimate result
is a one party dictatorship in the guise of democracy.
Subject: campaign finance From:Dorothy Date: 08 Aug 2000 10:09 AM
Dear Scott, You are absolutely right . Why union membership
doesn't rise up and state that they don't want any part of their dues
to finance the campaign of any candidate is a mystery to me.This
donating without consent is a misrepresentation of individual will. The
media also makes me sick. Have you noticed that most of the
anti-liberals tip toe around the core issues in fear of being called
bigots or nuts.It seems to me that once a person tells the truth he is
dragged down with little chance of getting up. I am sorry to say that
Gore and Hillary will be elected and the nation will be stuck in the
mire of deceit and very low life.
the gov. should establish a nation wide tv broadcast station to which
all candidates have access. it should be made avalible to the public
and the commercial stations should be able to use any thing on it.
commercial stations should be required to give a perscibed amount of
time to the candidates.
