The problem with Democrats is...
When I have an inspiration I just have to share. I just got a survey (fund raiser) from Common Cause. Question 5 "The cost of campaigns is sky rocketing, and...[pity party] ... [public should pay instead or limits on spending are the choices]." Now this is not a Democratic or Republican organization. So my title is potentially misleading as it is really everybody's "problem." The solution it seems is always to implement Band-Aid symptom fixes without considering the root cause. In this case, lets consider the motivation: TV and other media are able to make a lot of money off of political campaigns; that is their corporate goal: make money. Politicians want to be elected, statistics suggest that the candidate who spends the most will most likely win; there is a correlation. The public likes football, the Olympics, the Soaps, Technology; basically things to get excited about and talk about (and what the media advertisers convince them they can't live without) and therefore election races. The rich and their controlled interests, the corporations and international corporations, want to become richer and control the world so they will fund candidates who will help them maintain their stranglehold on most of humanity but in this case Americans. What is a candidate to do? Agree to accept voluntary limits on spending while his opposition has no limit on spending - THAT IS STUPID! It's like hugging a tree while the forest is cut down. How then can we get this house in order?
Lets give budget control to the voters, isn't that what elections are about. Lets use the principles America was founded on: Freedom to spend your money as you choose, Freedom to speak your mind to any who will listen, Freedom to consider the amount of money taken from their pockets by the overspending on the campaign, Freedom to choose a more frugal politician who spends wisely the society's money. Instead of imposing rules to limit spending or satisfying the desire of all by arranging for somebody else to pay for the party we instead go for the reality of the current Lassa fare, because after hearing 50 years of election reform, nothing effectively has changed. How can we have spending without limit and not assure the big spender wins?
The problem with Democrats is they want someone else to pay. So do Republicans. They may be choosing a different third party but they want something for nothing.
You've read this far so hear me out. If on all elections the amount of that candidates total campaign were charged to the taxpayers of that community (for president the entire United States) an additional head tax equivalent to the winners campaign cost. The tax would go to the general community tax account NOT TO THE CAMPAIGN. The more frugal taxpayers would soon put an end to wasteful spending, as they would realize that the big spending by the big spenders was costing them MONEY. This is not the one we want in office. The one we want in office is the one who can get the job done efficiently; the electorate is smart. They will then have to weigh the spending effectiveness of the campaign along with the other qualifications of the candidate, remember the campaign spending is a (strong) hint of the spending she/he will do in office. Give the electorate the information and the personal cost (not a third party) and they will make the right decision.
The only thing necessary then is an accurate accounting of spending prior to the election. The source of money and their laundering of it is of no consequence because the public will choose a representative who spends wisely. No more endless repetitions of "vote for me." Focus on issues and abilities will ensue without loss of freedom. Money still has its power; power offset by a real cost as voters have the direct power to vote for less waste of their money. The guy who has a great party but charges less at the door wins. Problem solved!
| 
