Presidential Campaign Process

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Nomination by petition and no primaries. Multiple party candidates and popular vote. Equal television coverage.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Actually the impact of corporate money is widely exaggerated. I'm not saying that it is not significant. But in the last few presidential elections smaller private donations have accounted for the most money, esp for the republician candidates (yes the avg donation size has been smaller for republicians than for dems). Back in 96 the dems biggest organized contributers were booze co's and the repubs was tobacco. Tobacco also gave a lot to dems but, not as much. If I remember correctly (I am on memory here) oil cos gave less than tobacco and booze (agricorps) overall.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Nomination by petition and no primaries. Multiple party candidates and popular vote. Equal television coverage.
Past attempts at such have been too easy to corrupt for my tastes.
I say we have unlimited contributions, that are immediatly reported on the internet. That way the public knows exactly who is backed by what intrests.
Either way McCain/Fiengold has to be repealed because it has only made the past problems worse and would more aptly be named The Incumbant Protection Act.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Actually the impact of corporate money is widely exaggerated. I'm not saying that it is not significant. But in the last few presidential elections smaller private donations have accounted for the most money, esp for the republician candidates (yes the avg donation size has been smaller for republicians than for dems). Back in 96 the dems biggest organized contributers were booze co's and the repubs was tobacco. Tobacco also gave a lot to dems but, not as much. If I remember correctly (I am on memory here) oil cos gave less than tobacco and booze (agricorps) overall.
Past attempts at such have been too easy to corrupt for my tastes.I say we have unlimited contributions, that are immediatly reported on the internet. That way the public knows exactly who is backed by what intrests.
Either way McCain/Fiengold has to be repealed because it has only made the past problems worse and would more aptly be named The Incumbant Protection Act.
As t recall, the drug companies were deep into the Bush election process. It just seems that the actions in DC are too heavily influenced by large contributions. I am not only for reform of the election process I am also for the elimination of earmarks.
Anything to curtail the corruption
I wasn't aware of any previous attempts to revise the Federal Election process.

[eliminatedsprinter]

As t recall, the drug companies were deep into the Bush election process. It just seems that the actions in DC are too heavily influenced by large contributions. I am not only for reform of the election process I am also for the elimination of earmarks.
Anything to curtail the corruption
I wasn't aware of any previous attempts to revise the Federal Election process.
Drug cos do indeed contribute. The past attempts I am referring to, are those of other nations. I really do believe that a more free and more transparent system, while not perfect, is nevertheless the best of all available options.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Drug cos do indeed contribute. The past attempts I am referring to, are those of other nations. I really do believe that a more free and more transparent system, while not perfect, is nevertheless the best of all available options.
ES,
How much more transparant could the process be than allowing all nominated by petition to race for te popular vote in the one election.
Most agree that our system and process are overly corrupt but many seem to want to accept the status quo and go about their business. Sounds very similar the millions of Americans who don't vote because they don't believe that their vote or opinion matters.
I'm not claiming to have the answer but I beleive that a great deal of DC corruption stems from the campaign process.
Both parties are corrupt and voting for the less corrupt, IMO, is not the way.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
How much more transparant could the process be than allowing all nominated by petition to race for te popular vote in the one election.
Most agree that our system and process are overly corrupt but many seem to want to accept the status quo and go about their business. Sounds very similar the millions of Americans who don't vote because they don't believe that their vote or opinion matters.
I'm not claiming to have the answer but I beleive that a great deal of DC corruption stems from the campaign process.
Both parties are corrupt and voting for the less corrupt, IMO, is not the way.
I agree the staus quo sucks, I just want the least restrictive (least corrupt) option. If you use the above system then you will have to limit the size of the field to a workable level. This has always been accomplished by setting a minimum number of signatures to qualify (a number that would have to be quite high) or by limiting it to a set number of canditates that have the most signatures. Either way, all it does is shift the corruption and the influence of money from the election process to the petition process.
I say, since this is the land of the free, that we should free it up and let people and corps do what they want with their money and let the voters know who's doing what with it as well.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I agree the staus quo sucks, I just want the least restrictive (least corrupt) option. If you use the above system then you will have to limit the size of the field to a workable level. This has always been accomplished by setting a minimum number of signatures to qualify (a number that would have to be quite high) or by limiting it to a set number of canditates that have the most signatures. Either way, all it does is shift the corruption and the influence of money from the election process to the petition process.
I say, since this is the land of the free, that we should free it up and let people and corps do what they want with there money and let the voters know who's doing what with it as well.
I agree that what you are suggesting could be very helpful and no doubt easier to implement. The only problem is that people would still have to off of their lazy's a**es and research.
I have often thought that election campaigns have no business on television. Not in the way of debates just campaign ads.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I agree that what you are suggesting could be very helpful and no doubt easier to implement.
Except for one thing................................
Our current system, esp after McCain/Fiengold, amount's to incumbant protection. It will be very difficult to make those sitting in congress vote themselves less job security.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Except for one thing................................
Our current system, esp after McCain/Fiengold, amount's to incumbant protection. It will be very difficult to make those sitting in congress vote themselves less job security.
There are some good points to McCain/Fiengold and there some bad.
My original thoughts were related to Federal Elections.