We are seeing more and more candidates buying their way into office. Cantwell did it here a few years ago, Whitman is spending something like $150 M of her money to win the California governor’s race and Richert’s opponent is trying the same here. I KNOW this discussion will devolve into Democrats are all demons, Republicans are all troglodytes, but that’s not my intention. Party politics aside, do you think candidates should be able to effectively buy their way into office with their own money?

DV - This is America, if someone wants to spend their own money in pursuit of anything (legal that is) - they should be able to do so. I would like to see some restriction on the amount of time prior to election that is devoted to political advertising because overall, money has too much influence.

Should give one pause to think just how much many an elected official makes. Why spend 150 million for a job that pays a few hundred thousand? The bennies must be wonderous.

I think ALL elections should be funded with 100% private money. The federal and state governments give way too much to candidates. I also think it should be illegal for the president/vice president to campaign for others while in office. How many tens of millions does it cost the tax payers For Obama to campaign for Murray or Kitzhaber? Airforce 1&2 in the air, support staff, motorcades etc. How much in jet fuel alone? Bush, Clinton, Obama, they all do it, and it's wrong. Those other campaigns do not pay those costs no matter what they claim.
I would like to see a per person/corporation/union limit on campaign contributions. Unions have too much political buying power, that needs to end. Unions need to be outlawed, but that's another topic. Sure corporations spend a lot, but they usually spend on both sides so they have favor no matter who wins.

I would too but the Supremes, led by the conservative alliance, recently ruled that there should be no limits.

So should weekends, vacation time, minimum wage, workmen's comp, child labor laws, and all those pesky safety regulations. Oh, and the middle class, too; they're the ones really bringing this country down.[/sarcasm]


Remember that vast warehouse void of furniture? It doesn't seem plausible, but it appears it's gotten even emptier.

Just because that's the law doesn't mean it's right. The supreme court is just a bunch of activists anyway. They are a first class joke.

Same solution as always...publicly funded elections, and term limits.

Done.

Fish on...

Todd

Go Harley thinks without unions we'd all send our 6 year olds to a sweat shop instead of school. So all the non union shops have no vacations, weekends off etc? Unions out lived their usefulness.

I don't disagree with much of anything posted so far, and it is a problem that is so huge that I have no idea how to solve it. I believe that any politician with any number of years under their belt at all becomes corrupted by necessity. It seems that earmarks are the only way to get anything passed that is of benefit to the average joe.....but at what cost?

Well it only took a handful of posts to get to the partisan bickering.

I'm with Todd. 100% publicly funded elections with tight caps on amounts and number of day for electioneering. Let’s say 10 million for presidential, 5 million for senators, 2 million for congressmen. Primary in September, election in November.

Total cost to taxpayer, considerably less than now considering the bad government the current system spawns.

Apparently you still have a problem discerning the difference between a fact and opinion.

Hank is Fair and balanced.

We need these guys to clean up this mess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSvJwUFI_es&NR=1

Hank: I suspect you know this, but the decision was 5-4. The five being the most conservative justices. Form the Christian Science Monitor you can read this
Ahead, a flood of corporate/union election spending?
The decision opens the gates for what campaign reform advocates warn will be a flood of corporate spending in future elections. The ruling is expected to permit similar political expenditures from the general treasuries of labor unions, as well.


“This is the most radical and destructive campaign-finance decision in the history of the Supreme Court,” said Fred Worthheimer, president of Democracy 21.

“Today’s decision is the Super Bowl of really bad decisions. It returns us to the days of the robber barons,” said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause.

Among political leaders, Democrats attacked the decision and Republicans praised it.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky lauded the decision as “monumental.” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said he was pleased by the decision. “These are the bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and strengthen our democracy,” he said.

From the White House, President Obama called the ruling a “major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

If you want to do a little home work take the time to see which justices voted for it and which against. Thsi was ,in fact, a decision by the conservative justices.

For a bit of analysis of this awful decision read this also form the CSM:

On one side, liberal reformers have sought to limit the influence of wealthy corporate interests by emphasizing the importance of maintaining a "level playing field." They have argued that corporations and labor unions could dominate the airwaves with slick and highly effective attack ads, leaving no time for the targeted candidates to respond. If American democracy is based on the principle of one person, one vote, they say, then corporations must be muzzled during political campaigns to prevent their amassed wealth from dominating and corrupting a political campaign.

Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, have countered that limiting the amount of money a corporation – or anyone – can spend to make their political point is censorship and a violation of the letter and spirit of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Corporate power and influence aren't inherently corrupting, they say, as long as they're part of a vibrant debate within an open marketplace of ideas.

From the White House, President Obama called the ruling a “major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Would those be the same "big oil" like BP, that supported Obama, Wall street banks that contributed millions to Obama and were then bailed out, health insurance companies and hospitals that overwhelmingly supported the dems, and " other powerful interests that marshal their power everyday in Washington...." like the SEIU and other unions?

Just want to make sure that I understand the same president complaining about big donors wasn't receiving same said moneys.

Funny thing about the supreme court, if you disagree with them ( I sometimes do) they are partisan hacks, if you agree with them, they are saviors of the country and constitution.

In public funded elections, who gets funded? The whole process of deciding who gets funded and why seems to be very open for manipulation and the ability to limit fringe candidates. I personally like the idea that a candidate could step up with his own ideas and support them without having to cower to anyone or any party. So lets say that they only fund the top two or three candidates from a primary. What happens then if one or both the candidates have some type of scandal revealed? I would like to see a limit on what can be spent with 100% accounting. For every dollar a candidate wants to spend above that amount he or she must donate an equal amount into a fund that is split among the other registered candidates. Doesnt restrict his free speech, only assures that other voices have a means of being heard.

Hank: Reread my post. I,like Todd,advocate public funding of elections.

It was your conservative justices who opened the floodgates for whomever has the most money. John McCain was against this when he was a moderate. Now that he's a faux teabagger he's changed his mind.

Me too. Except completely the opposite.

The problem is keeping private money out of the elections. Unfortunately, even if that was desired, it would be nearly impossible to control.

I'm with Todd; publicly funded elections and term limits.

BTW, does anyone even watch or listen to these obscene TV attack ads? I flip the mute switch. Millions upon millions of dollars being spent on mudslinging attacks in an effort to buy the vote of the few undecideds out there. No amount of money could cause me to vote for Rossi, and I'm sure the flip side is true of many who wouldn't vote for Murray. They must be spending close to $100,000 per vote that is actually up for grabs. All this for a job that pays about $175,000 a year.