I've come under a new (at least to me) understanding of our government (US) and I suppose other capitalist governments like it:
We represent ourselves with the money we spend.We no longer have an affect on the politicians we elect into office. They listen more (and probably only) to those who contribute to their campaign.
Point in fact, I sent three letters to three different state representatives, expressing my concern on a local issue and asking them for a response on their position. No response (and I sent the letters on May 5th).
Now I'm not bitter, but that was the first time I took the time to write my representatives and it's very discouraging to not get a response (out of three attempts). I assert that if I were a major contributor to their campaign (and probably had a hotline into their office/desk), I would be heard.
So those that find themselves on the 'have' side of the fence (millionaires on both the individual and corporate sense) basically rule our country. Where do they get their money? From us, the wage-earners that spend on their products/services.
Those who may still have some idealism and say "But Jason, we have elections!", I would counter that we elect those that are most prominent or charismatic, those politicians that have the most campaign money to get in our faces/minds through modern media.
There's only one fix to this problem (well, there may be others, but this is me being idealistic again ;)) that I can see and that's major campaign-finance reform. When I say major, I mean NO contributions at all allowed. Modern media would be forced to provide candidates with equal promotional opportunities and the government would provide a set and small budget for the candidates to travel around and meet/greet the people they would (hope to) represent.
Until then, watch where you spend your money, know who will ultimately get it and how they will spend it. If you're a liberal, spend your money on companies/people that think liberally and vice versa if you're more conservative.
The same can go for countries, as well. If you don't like the way that China treats their people, then don't spend your money on products made in China (that's hard and sometimes more expensive, but it's really your call and it does have an impact).
Jason
I get letters back from my Congresspeople all the time. Both from mail I send them and from email I send them. Haven't sent mail in awhile. You know, of course, that the mail is being quarantined and checked pretty carefully since the Anthrax scare.
Oh great, fix our problems by limiting our free expression. Does this mean that I can't speak my mind using expensive web servers? Can I contribute my time to canvass my neighborhood? Will my shoe leather and gasoline be counted as a campaign contribution? What if I print up glossy brochures, is that to be allowed?
How about Big Media commentators (TV, Radio, Newspapers)? Big Media spends a lot of money getting their political position out. Newspapers endorse candidates, for example. They are far more effective than political ads. Seems like they would have a lot more power after you "NO contributions" scheme went into effect, or to make it really fair, let's just outlaw all political speech if any resources that costs money are involved. That includes TV, Radio, Newsprint, gasoline, Internet bandwidth, people's time, etc.
If we had full disclosure on political contributions and allow people to decide for themselves how to vote and contribute based on this information, then we would get the Government we deserved, at least. Funny how the McCain's of the world always poo-poo full disclosure recommendations in favor of various patchwork bans and limits on what and how you can spend your money.
All this call for Campaign Finance Reform is being driven by the media - it's always way way way down in polls of important issues to the American people - because the more the Corporate and Special Interests are muzzled, the more power the Big Media has.
There is no fix to a system where the people are apathetic and don't care. If we had the information about who was contributing and didn't act accordingly, then we would get the Government we deserve.
Re:That's funny...
Purdy on 2002-06-25T13:57:35
If you're asking the first questions as a potential candidate, then I say you can spend as much money as you can afford... I'm not prohibiting your right to free speech/expression. I'm prohibiting the advantage that politically-minded corporate support would afford you an edge over your competition and make you their slave afterwards.But I see your point - then we would slide into a system of rich candidates being able to buy more exposure/mindshare than a government allotment for a candidate of lesser finanical ability.
As for the rest of your comments, lots of good stuff for me to chew on & think about.
I would assert that we already have a system where people are apathetic and don't care, though. Why are Big Media's endorsements and slighted/biased commentaries so effective? Because the voting public don't want to do research on their own or if they do, it's hard to get to an objective truth about their candidates.
I agree that full disclosure would be A Good Thing !
Jason
Re:That's funny...
jmm on 2002-06-25T14:18:18
I took the question as coming from an individual who supported a candidate in some way - giving money, time, etc. to help that candidate get elected.
Free speech must be available to the voters - including the ability to "speak" with their wallet by publishing their own views in a way that will be available to many people.
That makes it a very bad idea to prohibit campaign contributions. A cap on contributions is worth looking at, but as was said it is hard to decide what is a contribution.
Re:improve your odds
Purdy on 2002-06-25T14:02:27
Good point... I'll remember that next time I'm provoked into public action. I did write a letter to the editor along with those three letters, but it wasn't published.Jason
