Cost of this election cycle...

[Mr. Blue]

When I was away on a mini-vacation, no tv, no computer, and only a complimentary morning news paper to get my fix of information. One of the stories focused on how much was raised money wise by the people running for office this election cycle.

The number was around 6 billion dollars spent on advertising, etc. How damaged is our political system when there's that type of money floating around candidates? What type of favors do our politicians owe for that type of money?

This is just 1 part of why the American political system seems so desperately damaged to me.

[doctordog]

When I was away on a mini-vacation, no tv, no computer, and only a complimentary morning news paper to get my fix of information. One of the stories focused on how much was raised money wise by the people running for office this election cycle.

The number was around 6 billion dollars spent on advertising, etc. How damaged is our political system when there's that type of money floating around candidates? What type of favors do our politicians owe for that type of money?

This is just 1 part of why the American political system seems so desperately damaged to me.

We just saw a Muslim raised interracial senator buy the White House with his undisclosed donors. Everything has a price and we just witnessed the price for the White House and China has a front row seat.

[Mick063]

When I was away on a mini-vacation, no tv, no computer, and only a complimentary morning news paper to get my fix of information. One of the stories focused on how much was raised money wise by the people running for office this election cycle.

The number was around 6 billion dollars spent on advertising, etc. How damaged is our political system when there's that type of money floating around candidates? What type of favors do our politicians owe for that type of money?

This is just 1 part of why the American political system seems so desperately damaged to me.

The internet is the cure. It is now a proven fact. Several million people donating $5 is more powerful than a few large special interests donating several hundred thousand.

Whenever the American people prevail, the system is working as intended. It just takes time to fill the niches as they appear.

[Mr. Blue]

Shouldn't there be some form of spending cap though? I mean we have it for sports, why not have it for politics?

[doctordog]

Shouldn't there be some form of spending cap though? I mean we have it for sports, why not have it for politics?


The Arabs have discovered our greed and used it to get their candidate elected. I am glad I don't live in a major city as they now have a strategist in the White House.

[Mick063]

The Arabs have discovered our greed and used it to get their candidate elected. I am glad I don't live in a major city as they now have a strategist in the White House.

Zero credibility with respect to realistic analysis. Slight credibility with respect to being a comedian. Otherwise, little or no value added with respect to contribution to the topic.

[Mick063]

Shouldn't there be some form of spending cap though? I mean we have it for sports, why not have it for politics?

The difference between a movement and a campaign is the swell of money from the ground up at a grass roots level as opposed to a "donation" from a special interest (top down). Campaigns should be capped (large donors). Movements should never be capped (small donors). No party with a compelling platform should fear this.

If a candidate is raising large amounts of money from small donations, that is a movement. In such cases, the American voice should not be limited. It is a level playing field that worked equally well for both Reagan and Obama. Both movements that swept me off of my feet and gave me great hope for America's future.

Movements give Americans purpose and bring us together. In dire times, much more important than simple ideaology of the left or right. Those that don't participate realize quickly that they are out of the mainstream. But.....that only works for movements. Not campaigns.

[Smurf-Herder]

We should make public funding mandatory.

It gives them all an equal footing

Too many ways to work the present system.

[Mr. Blue]

The difference between a movement and a campaign is the swell of money from the ground up at a grass roots level as opposed to a "donation" from a special interest (top down). Campaigns should be capped (large donors). Movements should never be capped (small donors). No party with a compelling platform should fear this.

If a candidate is raising large amounts of money from small donations, that is a movement. In such cases, the American voice should not be limited. It is a level playing field that worked equally well for both Reagan and Obama. Both movements that swept me off of my feet and gave me great hope for America's future.

Movements give Americans purpose and bring us together. In dire times, much more important than simple ideaology of the left or right. Those that don't participate realize quickly that they are out of the mainstream. But.....that only works for movements. Not campaigns.

Well, the only problem I have with "movement" vs. campaign, is the fact you can always game the system. So, even this idea of small donations vs. large donations, etc. it's problematic.

Also, how the media will box out certain third party candidates where their ideas, etc, often get marginalized by not getting the coverage that was needed during those early stages of the campaign.

I'll give three examples. Ron Paul, basically every media outlet made him sound like a nut, but in all honesty he had a platform that would be interesting to many. Ralph "I like to piss people off" Nader, again, this time around no news outlet would even give him the time of day. Not sure if they're still blaming him for Gore. Also some candidates like Bill Richardson, who for me was the best candidate for the Dems, but he didn't the time of day on the networks, cable, etc.

Also, I'm not even talking about the Presidential election, all the smaller elections where perhaps the watchdogs aren't looking so carefully, senate races, or even local politics.

Just seems like the way we finance elections automatically removes third party candidates from having a chance. Who was the last third party candidate that had any legs? Ross Perot and that's because he dumped his own money on the situation.

[Moby]

The Arabs have discovered our greed and used it to get their candidate elected. I am glad I don't live in a major city as they now have a strategist in the White House.
That occurred back in 2000 as if you dig a little you can find the Bush family connections to oil and The Middle East quite easily. Why so many people supported his policies of weakening America while The Middle East because so wealthy is beyond me.

[Moby]

We should make public funding mandatory.

It gives them all an equal footing

Too many ways to work the present system.
No it doesn't. There's still Murdoch, Mays and Moon that are putting vast amounts of money into a single political goal. Claiming that they are on equal footing is simply ignoring the facts.

[Mick063]

Well, the only problem I have with "movement" vs. campaign, is the fact you can always game the system. So, even this idea of small donations vs. large donations, etc. it's problematic.

Also, how the media will box out certain third party candidates where their ideas, etc, often get marginalized by not getting the coverage that was needed during those early stages of the campaign.

I'll give three examples. Ron Paul, basically every media outlet made him sound like a nut, but in all honesty he had a platform that would be interesting to many. Ralph "I like to piss people off" Nader, again, this time around no news outlet would even give him the time of day. Not sure if they're still blaming him for Gore. Also some candidates like Bill Richardson, who for me was the best candidate for the Dems, but he didn't the time of day on the networks, cable, etc.

Also, I'm not even talking about the Presidential election, all the smaller elections where perhaps the watchdogs aren't looking so carefully, senate races, or even local politics.

Just seems like the way we finance elections automatically removes third party candidates from having a chance. Who was the last third party candidate that had any legs? Ross Perot and that's because he dumped his own money on the situation.


You can take any "perfect" system and insert the human element to create an undesireable outcome. That doesn't mean the system is flawed. That means that humans are flawed. Find me a system, organization, government, or group where you cannot "game the system".

There is risk regardless of what system is in place. My argument is centered on the idea that the voice of the American people is good. Further, the current system is not reliant enough on the voice of common people and is too heavily reliant on special interests (large single donations).

As a person that voted for Barak Obama, I felt a redeeming quality of John McCain was his battle for campaign finance reform. I don't agree with several elements of his proposal. I do agree that it is an issue that should be on the table. I admire how he "bucked" his party leadership on this issue.

I stand by my statement and belief that movements (large sums of money from small donations) is a voice of the American people and should never be capped. Regardless of ideaology or party affliliation, it works for both sides when America calls for a change.

[Mick063]

Well, the only problem I have with "movement" vs. campaign, is the fact you can always game the system. So, even this idea of small donations vs. large donations, etc. it's problematic.

Also, how the media will box out certain third party candidates where their ideas, etc, often get marginalized by not getting the coverage that was needed during those early stages of the campaign.

I'll give three examples. Ron Paul, basically every media outlet made him sound like a nut, but in all honesty he had a platform that would be interesting to many. Ralph "I like to piss people off" Nader, again, this time around no news outlet would even give him the time of day. Not sure if they're still blaming him for Gore. Also some candidates like Bill Richardson, who for me was the best candidate for the Dems, but he didn't the time of day on the networks, cable, etc.

Also, I'm not even talking about the Presidential election, all the smaller elections where perhaps the watchdogs aren't looking so carefully, senate races, or even local politics.

Just seems like the way we finance elections automatically removes third party candidates from having a chance. Who was the last third party candidate that had any legs? Ross Perot and that's because he dumped his own money on the situation.


You can take any "perfect" system and insert the human element to create an undesireable outcome. That doesn't mean the system is flawed. That means that humans are flawed. Find me a system, organization, government, or group where you cannot "game the system".

There is risk regardless of what system is in place. My argument is centered on the idea that the voice of the American people is good. Further, the current system is not reliant enough on the voice of common people and is too heavily reliant on special interests (large single donations). In other words, I don't agree with government matching because it disguises movements. Without government matching, McCains campaign would have been even more inept. Common Americans were putting "money where their mouth is" and Barak Obama was getting the lions share. This concept of "movement" worked equally well for Ronald Reagan.


As a person that voted for Barak Obama, I felt a redeeming quality of John McCain was his battle for campaign finance reform. I don't agree with several elements of his proposal. I do agree that it is an issue that should be on the table. I admire how he "bucked" his party leadership on this issue.

I stand by my statement and belief that movements (large sums of money from small donations) is a voice of the American people and should never be capped. Regardless of ideaology or party affliliation, it works for both sides when America calls for a change.