View Single Post
  #14  
Old 11-08-2012, 08:56 AM
SwampYankee's Avatar
SwampYankee SwampYankee is offline
New England Hick
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropnosky View Post
I don't see how we can really amend how elections are run in present day without restricting free speech though.

Its a double edge sword, on one hand, Im not happy about money being able to flood media with ads, but on the other, I don't see how we can avoid that without affecting our core strengths.

Special interested groups of all kinds can take out any kind of advertisements they want with enough money. Locally, as a RI resident, I had the displeasure of being witness to the violent character assassination campaigns of the MA congressional battle between Warren and Brown, without being able to vote in it, which was annoying beyond belief since I had no closure and no stake, but was neck deep just like every other bordering state resident. I feel like thats how foreigners might feel.

Part of me wants to at least make rules for a minimum and maximum war chest for each candidate, and formalize advertising, IE, a public access channel where each presidential candidate gets equal air time regardless of party or size of party, and thats their restricted media outlet, while in person campaigning can continue as it always has without restriction, though as a luddite who loves old stuff, id love to make it go back to the candidates travel the nation by train and make speeches from the back of a pullman sleeper car.

It would be interesting if you had to demonstrate a certain amount of money for your campaign, but could not spend beyond a certain reasonable amount, and every presidential candidate was required to debate with every other presidential candidate regardless of party. I though I was keeping decently informed, but there were at least two names on the ballot that I was totally unfamiliar with for president.

I would love to see the major part people have to debate the minor party people and that be required every presidential election. Going back to Ross Perot as an example, nothing like another fresh perspective to really get a feel for how things should move forward, I find things are much too entrenched with just a realistic chance from only two candidates, and part of that is the money brought to the table by only two parties
I'm with you, drop'.

My only concern with campaign spending limits, or public-only funding, is that it heavily favors the incumbent. Not that I don't like the concept or theory behind it, just that I don't know how you level the field when a sitting candidate has a leg up on their opponent.
__________________

1980 300TD-China Blue/Blue MBTex-2nd Owner, 107K (Alt Blau) OBK #15
'06 Chevy Tahoe Z71 (for the wife & 4 kids, current mule) '03 Honda Odyssey (son #1's ride, reluctantly) '99 GMC Suburban (255K+ miles, semi-retired mule) 21' SeaRay Seville (summer escape pod)
Reply With Quote