If the Green Party's message resonated,they'd be able to raise $1.1B, too. But if democrats and republicans get to vote to limit spending, they'll limit Greens to $100K so they would never have a chance.
I'm not saying it is. I think a third party could very well have the better ideas but they are basically locked out at the moment barring shit-tons of cash and a name with importance.
I'm in favor of a constitutional amendment that says money does not equal free speech. This way laws could be passed limiting any single donor to X amount and getting rid of pacs (tight and left).
3rd parties are not locked out now. Ross Perot seemed to have a legit chance to win if he hadn't turned out to be loony.
So a republican congress can vote to eliminate all spending by war opponents who want to air ads against Bush/Cheney. I see this as a HUGE flaw in the idea.
There may need to be other stipulations, but at least it's an attempt to fix what's broken. You, as a libertarian seems to think money should always win out, I just fundamentally disagree.
I think the government simply shouldn't have the power to decide who can run, who gets the best funds to run, who gets the bigger megaphone to protest, and so on. It seems so undemocratic if they could.
I'm perfectly happy with having all donations limited to x amount (let's say $1000) and that outside groups may not advertise. That would make the Libritarian, green or any party just as capable as the Dems and Reps.
It's not the money idea you have that bothers me, it's the squashing of 1st amendment rights. No 1st amendment right to assembly? No 1st amendment right to free speech? Why shouldn't a teachers' union be able to advertise on issues related to education? It seems like they should be able to. Once you start trying to match up groups to issues for advocacy, you have the government squashing speech again. The $1000 limit means rich guys get 1000x more influence than guys who can only afford $1.
I'd love to have the teachers union be able to contribute, but it's just not fair to care out stipulations for one group. All the teachers can still have their say by donating some amount less than $1001. I doesn't say the groups can't promote their ideals, but they simply can't advertise. They could plea for their members to donate or vote one way, but they simply wouldn't be able spend millions like they do now. Neither would the oil companies. Neither would the financial industry. In the end, maybe you get people into office doing what they think is right instead of what their donors want.
Well, you're chalking huge military to Bush, Obama and the next President. Which of those do you think is posting here under the moniker "Minstrel?" It's curious how your mind works.
I donate $1000 to candidate X because he's for Y. But he's against Z which I am for. I don't want to dilute the message I want to get out. I'd rather give $1000 to organization that promotes Y and only Y. I think if you want people to do what's right and not what donors want, you need term limits. Congressmen and presidents have historically done honorable things once they're lame ducks.
None of them. I am quite sure that voting for a democrat or republican means the military is going to be huge. I'm asking why you would vote for either one. Do you want a huge military?
Lame ducks continue to pander to the interests from which they want a high-paying lobbying job when they leave office.
Well shit then. There's no way around having a bad government except starving the beast. Make it so weak there's no power it can wield to abuse the office.
Actually, on further thought, I don't see why a group (union or otherwise) couldn't pull money to support their cause as long as the total amount was less than the $1000 a person, and as long as each individual donor verified that they only gave their personal aliquot to their group and didn't also donate to other groups or to the actual candidate. This way if a group, let's say a church, that has 5000 members wants to advertise for something they believe, they could do so as long as their members agreed and didn't separately donate.
I don't, but unfortunately you don't get a line-item veto with your vote. There isn't ever a candidate who represents 100% of what you want and nothing you don't want. That candidate would be yourself and most of us don't have the time, inclination, infrastructure, etc, to run.
