posted
I read that some woman has spent a $140 million dollars running to become the govenor of California. What a @#^$ing waste. That's enough to fund research into a few diseases.
There should be legal caps on how much can be spent. As a matter of fact, if you qualify, every candidate should get a certain amount from the government and that would be all that they could legally spend, so it would really be an equal race and it would get rid of the lobbyists who ruin this country.
I would have it so that they could have a website. That there would be debates that the cable companies and tv stations would be mandated to show and the candidates actually have to participate in. And some space set aside in all newspapers and magazines. And of course they could go on as many talkshows, etc, that they wanted.
All races would start small and work their way up. From town, to county, to state, to regions, to nation. So, if you won the town you would go on to the county level and receive x dollars, if you won the county etc. The smallest level would start with no money from the government.
Call me crazy, but what we currently have let's the 1% rule this country and makes me sick.
Posts: 743 | From New York | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
linky123
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 19974
posted
Think of all the starving people you could feed with that much money.
-------------------- 'Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.' Matthew 11:28 Posts: 2607 | From Hooterville | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And counting. Judging from the plethora of political ads plastered on our television set at any given moment, I'd say that woman is continuing to spend her money running to become the governor of California. Not in any way comparing the two politically or personally, but this race, in my view, harkens back to the Ross Perot bid for the presidency long ago. I can't help likening it to an attempt to purchase a political appointment and a place in history. You are right; things would be a lot different if each candidate had the same amount of funding with which to work.
Posts: 212 | From San Francisco Bay Area, California | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The political battle for governor between those two has been pretty ugly on both sides. Sad commentary on the times, in my view, that the focus is more often on tearing down the other candidate than illuminating what they would do for us as governor.
Posts: 212 | From San Francisco Bay Area, California | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Hoosiers51
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15759
posted
"there would be debates that the cable companies and tv stations would be mandated to show and the candidates actually have to participate in. And some space set aside in all newspapers and magazines."
You really think the government should force all magazines to cover that? Field and Stream? Cosmopolitian? Not trying to criticize your view on whether elections need reform, but this is a pretty extreme mandate for the government to undertake. It would never work, nor should it happen, under our Constitution! (freedom of the press???)
It's Meg Whitman's money.....she can spend it how she wants I suppose. I guess that is one of the perks to being ultra-rich. No one can tell you what to do with your money. If you earn it, you spend it.
We're a republic, so the people of CA will decide if they like her style or not, on election day. My guess is that people will be turned off by all the campaign spending, but then again, Californians really only have 2 options (her or Jerry Brown).
You could look at it this way....she is pouring money into the economy, into circulation, instead of putting it in a trust fund for her children. The U.S. needs the big spenders to be out there spending right now, or the economy will never recover. Money being spent isn't really being wasted. It's going to local TV stations and some of it is going to tax revenue. The wasted money is the money sitting in the bank. None of Meg Whitman's money would have gone to feed the homeless or go into Lyme research.....it's either being spent or saved, and CA needs spenders, as does the U.S.
Does it SEEM like a waste? Yes. Especially to us.
Posts: 4590 | From Midwest | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- I would like to see ALL advertising for politics eliminated.
But the media would scream as they get rich from political ads. And corporate sponsors LOVE political advertising as they get huge tax deductions for their donations. But then the candidate is beholden to them.
Public forums, discussion groups, etc. should be plenty for voter education. These can be covered by the media - or independent reporting groups.
Advertising is such a waste of money. Only the rich can run for office. If advertising were eliminated, the field could be open to others who are bright and hard working but whom just may not have millions to apply for the job. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ross Perot lost. So did Steve Forbes. Rich people do not always win. The ability to make enormous unconscionable amounts of money does not qualify a person to run government.
Isn't this an offtopic thread?
Posts: 8430 | From Not available | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
Ross didn't win, but he did spend his own money to be the first to warn us about the,'' giant sucking sound ``, of jobs leaving America! Money can be used for good by good people!
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
Hoosiers51
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15759
posted
I wasn't saying one of the perks is winning elections....I was saying one of the perks to being rich is that you have money, and the free agency to choose where 9/10 it goes (who are we kidding, more like 6/10 if you are rich and pay all taxes).....so she can fund a huge campaign with her money, because that's her decision.
About 1/10th of that went into CA taxes. Probably more. So it's no different than any rich person, that spends their gobs of money however they want. It's not a "waste of money" in the economic sense....it's just unfair in a political sense.
Yes, Off Topic!
Posts: 4590 | From Midwest | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96223 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
randibear
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 11290
posted
yeah, when i heard what they called her i thought. hey where's the now organization, they should be all over it. it was shoved under the rug really.
i mean it was like, oh ok, she's that...geee
burned me up big time i can tell you.
she'd get my vote.
-------------------- do not look back when the only course is forward Posts: 12262 | From texas | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic