Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

S/O of another question.

These answers I saw several times in another question.

We need election reform,
Really? Election reform or campaign reform? There is a difference

Money in elections? (campaigns)How exactly would you want the money situation in election (campaign) reform to look?
Should they have to be uber rich so they don't need money to campaign? Travel, lodging, speeches not to mention ads on TV and radio all cost huge amounts of money. How should they be able to get it?

Answer Question
 
itsmesteph11

Asked by itsmesteph11 at 8:38 AM on Mar. 5, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (113,405 Credits)
Answers (7)
  • Good question!

    I'll eagerly await the responses of the libs with all the answers!! :o)
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 8:42 AM on Mar. 5, 2011

  • Good question, the campaign reform they seek ensures that only the super rich can run for office.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 8:45 AM on Mar. 5, 2011

  • We need both. Campaigns should have a cap on money they can raise and no gov't funding to any candidates. The gov't shouldn't be able to help pay to get you elected. You choose to run. The gov't isn't responsible for that. Election reform to guarantee that fraud at the election places can be reduced, the roles are up-dated in a timely manor (death certificates are filed with the county and should be reported to the election office), no registration 1 month prior to the election, and finally, show proof of address/ID to vote. This last one would help keep people from having several names to go vote under in several different districts.
    jesse123456

    Answer by jesse123456 at 8:56 AM on Mar. 5, 2011

  • There are thing we can do to fix it, but I doubt it will ever be allowed to happen. As long as you can raise unlimited amounts of money, you will be a bought politician. When does the fundraising ever stop. You will always be owned by your donors, and expected to vote for their interests, if you expect them to give you more donations. This is what makes politicians corrupt. We could put limits on what can be spent, we can use the media, everyone that qualifies can get equal air time. Put rules on debates so every candidates voices are heard.  As long politicians need to raise big money to have any chance in an election, they will always be owned by who bought them.  That means in the end the people with all the money owns the rest of us.

    mommom2000

    Answer by mommom2000 at 11:28 AM on Mar. 5, 2011

  • Both. Election- in terms of fraud- I think that notion is pretty clear. Election fundraising should have a very restricted time period- Campaign reform- Where to even start .I agree there needs to be a cap on money that can be raised and the government needs to stay neutral in the process. With unlimited money being spent, politics becomes nothing more than fundraising and pandering- Cycle after cycle, and the work of the people never gets addressed. No POTUS can make balanced decisions when they owe favors to billionaires, Corporations, special interest groups and Unions, and the interests of all those groups often collide with one another. It's like that game where the alligator comes out of the cave and you have to whack him on the head before he retracts. It's easy to hit 1 alligator, but when there are 10 of them, you become a swinging lunatic; competency slides. CONT

    Sisteract

    Answer by Sisteract at 5:54 PM on Mar. 5, 2011

  • That's how I see our system working. Whackomo, marionette, juggler or puppet- Who in their right mind, let alone qualified right mind, would ever want that job? If the best and most qualified amongst us are not interested, we all lose. Just like MW might have had the right ideas for CA, the system allowed her to attempt to buy the position...Many are uncomfortable with that idea. Why should the one with the most $$$$ be able to control how things are run? Sounds a great deal like a dictatorship.

    Sisteract

    Answer by Sisteract at 5:58 PM on Mar. 5, 2011

  • It's simple, ban lobbying before and after an election.
    itsmesteph11

    Comment by itsmesteph11 (original poster) at 9:53 AM on Mar. 6, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.