Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Presidential Campaign Process

  1. #1
    ULTRA26 # 1
    I don't believe that a Presidential Campaign should be run on contributions. It seems that if these campaigns were Federally and Equally funded, the best man or woman would have a much better chance of being elected.
    For the people and by the people instead of for the money and by the money.
    Obviously this is the cliff note version.
    It would be good to hear your thoughts.

  2. #2
    '75 Miller
    I dunno, ultra, seems to me private and/or corporate money will always find it's way back into the mix. Whether it's Republican big business (oil, for instance) or democrat big business (unions, media for instance) there will always be those trying to subvert the "new" process.
    To me the whole thing is corrupt. I just fear the Republican's form of corruption less.

  3. #3
    Old Texan
    I can understand the benefits from removing corporate sponsorship. How do you propose funding be done? Without looking it up I can imagine campaign costs for the Presidential election to be minimum $100M, just for the primaries.
    And if you do it for the Presidential office it would seem you'd have to do it for the House and Senate. Plus the individual Gov. races determine those that typically get elected Pres eventually. Bush, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, etc. So you can't allow corporate funds to control the "farm system".
    Novel idea, but the cost to the taxpayer???? Tough one to sell.

  4. #4
    572Daytona
    I see it as a good form of income redistribution. Much more than taxes this seems to be one of the few things that gets money out of the pockets of the ultra rich (i.e. Soros) and creates lots of jobs during campaign season. Heck, even if the money is just being used to bribe skid row bums to go to the polls on election day at least it's getting money from the rich to the poor. And the money and the jobs stay in the USA (or have they outsourced campaign telemarketing yet?)

  5. #5
    ULTRA26 # 1
    I can understand the benefits from removing corporate sponsorship. How do you propose funding be done? Without looking it up I can imagine campaign costs for the Presidential election to be minimum $100M, just for the primaries.
    And if you do it for the Presidential office it would seem you'd have to do it for the House and Senate. Plus the individual Gov. races determine those that typically get elected Pres eventually. Bush, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, etc. So you can't allow corporate funds to control the "farm system".
    Novel idea, but the cost to the taxpayer???? Tough one to sell.
    IMO, the current cost to run a presidential campaign is a huge waste of money that the public ends up paying for one way or the other. Generally, in the primary arena, the campaign that raises the most money, wins, which again IMO, isn't how things should be.
    I don't see limiting this to Federal elections as being a problem.
    Obviously my concern is removing some of the corruption in Washington. If there are other more workable ideas, out there, please shere them.

  6. #6
    '75 Miller
    I see it as a good form of income redistribution. Much more than taxes this seems to be one of the few things that gets money out of the pockets of the ultra rich (i.e. Soros) and creates lots of jobs during campaign season. Heck, even if the money is just being used to bribe skid row bums to go to the polls on election day at least it's getting money from the rich to the poor. And the money and the jobs stay in the USA (or have they outsourced campaign telemarketing yet?)
    Income redistribution? You think that's a good thing? I'd just as soon cut soro's throat as look at him, but his money is just that ...HIS. what you describe, whether you meant to or not, is some some kinda RobinHood-esqe commie nonsense, and that's not my idea of fair at all.

  7. #7
    never_fast_enuf
    I don't believe that a Presidential Campaign should be run on contributions. It seems that if these campaigns were Federally and Equally funded, the best man or woman would have a much better chance of being elected.
    For the people and by the people instead of for the money and by the money.
    Obviously this is the cliff note version.
    It would be good to hear your thoughts.
    And when 100,000 "best people for the job" show up to get their federal money for running, what do you do?
    Also, the lame stream media is so undeniably leftwing biased, how do you get competing messages out?
    What I detest are candidates that claim they are taking the high road by NOT taking money from these special interest groups while they gladly take money from these special interest groups. What is even worse is when their supporters give them a free pass, even elevating their status for SAYING they are doing one thing while blatantly doing another. I have zero patience for that.

  8. #8
    bigq
    I don't like the idea at all, but then I don't like the feds paying for much of anything. That is not there job. Most of the crap they try to do should not be performed by the feds anyway according to the Constitution, but we may be past that point in time when it matters.
    I would throw into the mix that it should not pay and they should be required to have a career and not as a politician. I believe this is how they get corrupt, stay to long and become lifetime politicians. they should serve there time and then out with them. Maybe they would do more to benefit society if they had more of a vested interest in it and had to be involved everyday.

  9. #9
    Old Texan
    I don't like the idea at all, but then I don't like the feds paying for much of anything. That is not there job. Most of the crap they try to do should not be performed by the feds anyway according to the Constitution, but we may be past that point in time when it matters.
    I would throw into the mix that it should not pay and they should be required to have a career and not as a politician. I believe this is how they get corrupt, stay to long and become lifetime politicians. they should serve there time and then out with them. Maybe they would do more to benefit society if they had more of a vested interest in it and had to be involved everyday.
    Bingo- "Term Limits". We must get term limits into the entire mix not just the Presidency.
    Also we need to cut these "Lifetime" benefits the bastards keep bestowing upon themselves. It's pretty sad they are allowed to vote themselves pay raises and increases in benefits. It's the only time in their sessions they seem to stay focused and get something done.

  10. #10
    572Daytona
    Income redistribution? You think that's a good thing? I'd just as soon cut soro's throat as look at him, but his money is just that ...HIS. what you describe, whether you meant to or not, is some some kinda RobinHood-esqe commie nonsense, and that's not my idea of fair at all.
    It's voluntary, unlike taxes or other government mandated means, what's not to like about that? Soros doesn't have to donate money to elections but he does. It seems to be one of the few things that gets big money out the pockets of guys like him and puts it back into circulation.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New Presidential Lemo
    By donzi5150 in forum Political Phetoric
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-02-2008, 08:49 AM
  2. Presidential Priorities
    By Old Texan in forum Political Phetoric
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-28-2007, 04:08 PM
  3. Trying the Flowcoat Process
    By Rattle Can Lou in forum V-Drives
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-12-2006, 08:09 PM
  4. Voting - the process
    By Havasu_Dreamin in forum Political Phetoric
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-12-2005, 09:33 AM
  5. this is our 29' in the process.
    By MRS FLYIN VEE in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-07-2004, 02:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •