• Sign in

• Home
• Write for Webgazine
• Sign in
• About
• Contact

The Immorality Of Our Election Campaigns

We hear a lot of politicians, and others, discuss the need for campaign reform and usually there are not a lot of details concerning it. Some want our freedom of speech eliminated during the campaigning from  everyone except their followers. This is still a free country and when people express their thoughts and their preferences, that should not be impeded. Some feel that the playing field should be level, especially when it comes to finances. As long as we are free, that seems difficult to resolve. A man with fifty cents in his pocket (like myself) has no business trying to run for public office. If indeed he has the ability, integrity,  strength, and other qualifications and there are others who are willing to contribute towards his campaign, then perhaps he does have a reason to run, but in such cases he will be a long shot at best.

The 2008 presidential election is an example of  what an election should not be.  This campaign was the first in our nation’s history when presidential candidates raised over one billion dollars in campaign funds. The following figures are taken from the OpenSecrets.org Center For Responsive Politics. They are based on summary reports filed on January 31, 2009

Total campaign revenues collected by all candidates:

2008:  1 billion, 748.8 million dollars
2004:   880.5 million dollars
2000:   528.9 million dollars
1986:   425.7 million dollars

In 1980, only 161.9 million was raised by all candidates. Notice that the 2008 figure is almost twice the amount of 2004.

These figures represent to me, the title I have given this article. The figure for 1980 is far too much. Candidates should be allowed enough funds to put their stand on the various issues involved before the public and if there are true negative facts concerning their competitor, include those. It is totally unnecessary that  a candidate must have an office with a paid crew in every city of over 20,000 population. If they are worth their salt, there will be at least a few volunteers who will distribute literature and talk for them.

Each candidate should be limited to $5 million dollars expenditure. Any funds raised over that should be placed into worthy charities or into the federal treasury. Many of the small individual contributions are no doubt made for noble philosophical reasons. Many for fear of someone’s stand on economy, national security, etc. But, most of the large contributions are made from greed. Those who make them expect more in return than what they contributed.

There are several things which should be eliminated so only sincerely interested parties were allowed to contribute. Bundling should be stopped. Any company who has lobbyists in Washington, and the lobbyists themselves, should be barred from contributing to either party. Or, the lobbying should be stopped ...completely. Political Action Committees should be eliminated. Without exception, every donor should be listed plainly and separately by name, address and amount contributed.

At present, we have so many sources of raising contributions, with enough room for ambiguity, it is no doubt that many funds are illegal and also spent illegally. There should be limits placed on individuals and/or organizations expenditures towards directly advertising or canvassing for or against any candidate. For some examples: Swift Boat Veterans (2004) MoveOn Org. (2004-2008).  George Soros reportedly donated $23,581,000.00 to various groups during the 2003-2004 presidential campaign (per Wikipedia). These groups included Move On.Org. Center for American Progress and America Coming Together. All of this in an effort to defeat George W. Bush.

Soros rarely contributes to a candidate directly but sinks millions into organizations primarily involved in boosting the Democratic party and their candidates. The harm from greed, hatred and anger is multiplied by such organizations regardless of which party they are advocating. The American voter needs to choose the candidate which suits their philosophy closest. Big money, special interests and money raising schemes should have no part in the choosing or destroying a president.

Our government (not just this administration) is so deeply embedded in money from special interestsa and wealthy individuals that they are so absorbed in scratching the backs of those backers, they cannot govern well, the very people who vote them into office. Methinks we are too far gone to rectify this situation. Once in a great while, an honest politician will come along who, if he had enough help could move mountains. But they are so few. The late Senator Jesse Helms, from North Carolina, was such a person and he received nothing but hatred and criticism even from among his colleagues. I was honored to live in North Carolina during his tenure and voted for him every time he ran.

Senator Helms was a man who, every time a congressional pay raise was introduced, he voted against it.  He always turned back in some funds allowed him for his staff and expenses. There are so very few.

» left by Anonymous (2 years 158 days ago.)

I thought maybe for once, you and I agreed on something. Our elected officials are receiving way too much money from big business to be the representatives of the people.

 

Where you lose me is when you start blaming the Democrats as if they have the majority of special interest money.

 

Which big business supports health care reform? There's no money flowing from big business to support health care reform. The lions share is from the insurance industry, and it is in opposition to health care reform. Yet you are on their side.

 

In fact most of the issues without special interest money are issues that belong to the Democrats.  Social programs don't benefit big business.  Higher minimum wage doesn't benefit big business.  Hate crimes don't benefit big business.  Gay rights don't benefit big business.  Protection for Americans with disabilities doesn't benefit big business.  Racial and gender equality doesn't benefit big business.

 

All of these issues have no big payoff of Democrats, but they do for Republicans as they take the side of big business.  I just don't understand how you think the currupting power of money has more effect on the Democrats than it does on the Republicans.  Clearly the money is on the side of the Republicans.  Clearly the Democrats aren't taking their positions for the money.  Yet you blame the Democrats for being the most corrupted by special interests.

 

I think you are most upset over the fact that the other side was able to raise more money in the last election cycle than your side, even though it was largely because of the contributions of individuals and not corporate special interests.

 

I think you and I agree that our government has been crippled by money flowing from special interests, but the Republicans run the party of big business, and that's where the vast majority of the money is coming from.

 

» left by Anonymous (2 years 158 days ago.)

No, it matters not what the party is. Big business and wealthy individuals using the methods they do is wront from either party.. The main thing I was  swinging at the Democrats was exactly what you said, because they raised more money this time than the Republicans, but not that reason, the reason was from whom. The massive part of Obama's money came from such as George Soros, whos has openly said he wants to bring America down. And the giant unions did the same thing. And when this recession hit, Soros said he had been waiting all his life for this.

I can tell you right now, when they can raise 1 and 3/4 billion dollars there are debts to be repaid, regardless of who has it.  I don't want one party to be able to do something and the other not.

Thanks for reading and commenting

• Home
• Terms of Service
• Privacy
• Categories
• Writers' Guidelines
• Write for Webgazine
• Tag Cloud
• About
• Contact