Campaign Reform - Page 5

hsmith · 10-17-2006, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

why $1,000? It costs much more than that to run a campaign.

THat is part of the problem.

KatKanPlay · 10-17-2006, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

why $1,000? It costs much more than that to run a campaign.

And millions of dollars is way too much to have to spend.

kinggovernor · 10-17-2006, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

And millions of dollars is way too much to have to spend.

tv time in prime markets is expensive

kinggovernor · 10-17-2006, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

THat is part of the problem.

advertisements are expensive

Kytro · 10-17-2006, 11:23 PM

I don't really agree with the way media elements of campaigns are conducted. it automatically favour those with money over those with good ideas.

imind · 10-18-2006, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

tv time in prime markets is expensive

reduced rates for political ads, to be aired at certain times. hell, other companies would die to have ads placed either directly before or after the political ones. the networks would more than make up the difference.

KatKanPlay · 10-18-2006, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

advertisements are expensive

Using this as an excuse rather than acknowledging it might need to be fixed just supports making our representatives pawns for corporate money. As long as wealth is a factor in elections, we limit our opportunities to have true honest statesmen represent the best interests of the human citizens of this country. Corporations are dropping big money on the candidates that will best serve the interest of that corporation at the sacrifice of human citizens and the country as a whole.

KatKanPlay · 10-18-2006, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by imind

reduced rates for political ads, to be aired at certain times. hell, other companies would die to have ads placed either directly before or after the political ones. the networks would more than make up the difference.

i.e. Public Service Announcements?? Fair playing field for all.....

kinggovernor · 10-18-2006, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by imind

reduced rates for political ads, to be aired at certain times. hell, other companies would die to have ads placed either directly before or after the political ones. the networks would more than make up the difference.

why is that?
and why should we force companies to lose money by underselling their product

WickedLou9 · 10-18-2006, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

advertisements are expensive

You don't have a problem with a system where the guy with the most money wins? That's not a democracy. That's more of an aristocracy where the candidates are selected from a small group of "royal families" with the resources to run a campaign.

Phantom · 10-18-2006, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You don't have a problem with a system where the guy with the most money wins? That's not a democracy. That's more of an aristocracy where the candidates are selected from a small group of "royal families" with the resources to run a campaign.

Money helps, but it doesn't seem to be enough to keep Repubs in power this fall.

There's certainly more to elections than money.

WickedLou9 · 10-18-2006, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

Money helps, but it doesn't seem to be enough to keep Repubs in power this fall.

There's certainly more to elections than money.

The Dem's running don't have quite as much but they have plenty.

We are talking about campaigns with millions of dollars. When the (R) candidate has say 2 million and the (D) has 1.65 million... who really cares.

You still need millions of dollars to run .

Phantom · 10-18-2006, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The Dem's running don't have quite as much but they have plenty.

We are talking about campaigns with millions of dollars. When the (R) candidate has say 2 million and the (D) has 1.65 million... who really cares.

You still need millions of dollars to run .

Agreed, it costs quite a bit to run, but I see bigger problems with any proposals to limit spending. I don't mind cutting corporations out, but preventing individuals from spending their own money just seems un-american to me.

WickedLou9 · 10-18-2006, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

Agreed, it costs quite a bit to run, but I see bigger problems with any proposals to limit spending. I don't mind cutting corporations out, but preventing individuals from spending their own money just seems un-american to me.

I sort of agree, but then perhaps there could be somewhere else to look for a solution. We need to make is so that a candidate doesn't need millions of dollars to run for election.

Phantom · 10-18-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I sort of agree, but then perhaps there could be somewhere else to look for a solution. We need to make is so that a candidate doesn't need millions of dollars to run for election.

believe me, I would love another way. The money business is what keeps the two major parties in power and helps them shut out non-aligned parties and their views.

DosEquis · 10-18-2006, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

why $1,000? It costs much more than that to run a campaign.

$1,000 because that is an amount that a lot of people can come up with and it is not significant enough to buy votes. $1,000 is all congressman osborne did when he was running for governor and he was ok. He did it on his own though so that people couldn't say Merk was buying his votes.

Instead of TV ads they will just have to put things in news papers, magazines, radio, and other things. My grandpa always said tv fucked up politics anyway.

Diesel66 · 10-18-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

That doesnt cut it. A corporation is it own entity. The people that work for a corporation are nothing more than the current operators of its system. No 1 person can say "I AM" the corporation.

It doesnt matter. Poltical speech is the very reason the 1st Admendment was written.

7960 · 10-18-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by imind

reduced rates for political ads, to be aired at certain times. hell, other companies would die to have ads placed either directly before or after the political ones.

IMO and from what I've seen, as soon as a political ad comes on I change the channel. I'd never see the ad that came right *after* a political ad, and the ad that came right before wouldn't have any special recognition unless somehow I knew at 6:27:30 there was going to be an ad for some candidate. The commercial that comes on at 6:27:00 wouldn't get any special audience........so why do you say it would?

WickedLou9 · 10-18-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

It doesnt matter. Poltical speech is the very reason the 1st Admendment was written.

What if it was an outside country buying air time in the US to try and influence an election? With large companies today becoming increasingly multi-national, it's not that much of strange question. GM has operations all over the world. Chrysler is now partnered with a German company. Sony, Walmart, Microsoft, etc.

kinggovernor · 10-18-2006, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You don't have a problem with a system where the guy with the most money wins? That's not a democracy. That's more of an aristocracy where the candidates are selected from a small group of "royal families" with the resources to run a campaign.

where do they get their money from?

Ross Perot spent millions on his campigan, but came up way short