DarkFantasy96
09-01-2004, 04:31 PM
Earlier today, I stumbled across a piece of mail from the League of Women Voters. This organization is a nonpartisan group whose members are women with beliefs across the political spectrum, so I don't want to hear about "liberal propaganda this" or "democratic nonsense that".
The issue here is that, as the letter aptly put it, "there is a 'For Sale' sign on the Oval Office". In recent years, special interest groups have controlled increasingly more of our representatives. This means that average Americans have less voice in government than ever before. It also means that publicly funded politicians (those with the integrity to act honestly, and for the American people) are often outstripped in campaigns by privately funded politicians. The reason for this is that privately funded politicians do not have to abide by the same spending limits as publicly funded.
The public financing system, which was designed to end this sort of corruption, is commonly not used by candidates. For example, in the 2000 primaries, George W. Bush opted not to recieve public funding. This allowed him to raise more money, with fewer restrictions. He raised and spent a record amount of $90 million. That was TWICE the amount that publicly funded candidates are allowed to spend! However, before you gert the idea that this post is just bashin Bush, this is by no means a one party phenomenon. Sen. John Kerry, in this year's primaries, also rejected public financing and the spending limits which that includes.
This is not the only example of extreme political corruption. During the 2002 campaign year, parties, candidates, and special interest groups spent a record amount of $1 billion on TV ads alone. Only about half that amount was spent four years before, during the previous mid-term election. Senators from both political parties have said that donations to their parties from private corporations were made based on an "unspoken promise" of support for the concerns of the corporations.
And now, get ready to be shocked, I'm going to do something that is rarely done by liberals: CRITISIZE THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION! That's right folks, lol. During Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996, the Democratic party sold dinners with Clinton to high contributors. This is exactly the type of opportunity that special interest groups hope for! Basically, if they contributed enough, they would get a couple hours with the President to "convince" him to support their interests. Although I don't know for sure, I'd say that Bush and Kerry both do things like this.
Alright, I'm done. What does everyone think?
The issue here is that, as the letter aptly put it, "there is a 'For Sale' sign on the Oval Office". In recent years, special interest groups have controlled increasingly more of our representatives. This means that average Americans have less voice in government than ever before. It also means that publicly funded politicians (those with the integrity to act honestly, and for the American people) are often outstripped in campaigns by privately funded politicians. The reason for this is that privately funded politicians do not have to abide by the same spending limits as publicly funded.
The public financing system, which was designed to end this sort of corruption, is commonly not used by candidates. For example, in the 2000 primaries, George W. Bush opted not to recieve public funding. This allowed him to raise more money, with fewer restrictions. He raised and spent a record amount of $90 million. That was TWICE the amount that publicly funded candidates are allowed to spend! However, before you gert the idea that this post is just bashin Bush, this is by no means a one party phenomenon. Sen. John Kerry, in this year's primaries, also rejected public financing and the spending limits which that includes.
This is not the only example of extreme political corruption. During the 2002 campaign year, parties, candidates, and special interest groups spent a record amount of $1 billion on TV ads alone. Only about half that amount was spent four years before, during the previous mid-term election. Senators from both political parties have said that donations to their parties from private corporations were made based on an "unspoken promise" of support for the concerns of the corporations.
And now, get ready to be shocked, I'm going to do something that is rarely done by liberals: CRITISIZE THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION! That's right folks, lol. During Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996, the Democratic party sold dinners with Clinton to high contributors. This is exactly the type of opportunity that special interest groups hope for! Basically, if they contributed enough, they would get a couple hours with the President to "convince" him to support their interests. Although I don't know for sure, I'd say that Bush and Kerry both do things like this.
Alright, I'm done. What does everyone think?