So much for the unstoppable frontrunner...

[Masquerouge]

I would love to see any democracy in action where the people elected as prime minister/president were not succesful people with money to burn.

We havent had a poor president since abe lincoln mind you! Times have changed!

I'm only speaking for France, but there the amount of money you can spend on your presidential campaign is heavily regulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_France

"Spending and financing of campaigns and political parties are highly regulated. There is a cap on spending, at approximately 20 million Euros, and a government public financing of 50% of spending. Advertising on TV is forbidden but official time is given to candidates on public TV. An independent agency regulates election and parties financing."

 

[emzie]

I would love to see any democracy in action where the people elected as prime minister/president were not succesful people with money to burn.

We havent had a poor president since abe lincoln mind you! Times have changed!

Lyndon B. Johnson, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson to name a few.

 

[De Lorimier]

Do you think our democracy needs an enema?

I think all politicians should receive daily doses of enema. No particular reason. I just think it would bring them down to earth.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Do you think our democracy needs an enema?

How about a lobotomy?

 

[Whomp]

This is one of the first elections where candidates refused public funds. The last presidential candidate to use public funds was Bob Dole vs. Clinton. He ran out of money between the time he won and the convention. Clinton used the opportunity to slaughter him with commercials.

Here's a really good story on how campaign finance has dramatically changed over the last 10 years. It could be the first presidential election since 1972 in which none of the big players take federal matching funds. However, Obama recently proposed to McCain that should the two receive their respective party's nominations, they would agree to accept public campaign funds and McCain agreed.

The agreement came on the heals of the FEC decision to allow Obama to raise private money in the primaries but return the money if nominated by his party. The FEC unanimously approved Obama's plan, which may help save the public funding program would likely become obsolete.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6881333

btw Mitt Romney has raised $20 mill too.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I would love to see any democracy in action where the people elected as prime minister/president were not succesful people with money to burn.

We havent had a poor president since abe lincoln mind you! Times have changed!

Based on that recommendation, I'm never voting for someone who doesn't have at least a billion dollars.

Xannik, in a healthy democracy possessing $100 million isnt what makes you a serious candidate.

However, being a serious candidate will get you millions of dollars.

Although some of the money in the funds are the candidates' own (Romney gave himself a couple of million from his own pocket, but he's still millions ahead of Giuliani), pretty much all of it has to come from donors. Good candidates will be the popular ones who have a message which resonates with the people and a personality that many would like to see in the Oval Office. They will therefore get money from more donors.

A democratic form of government is, quite literally, a popularity contest. Popularity rakes in the donations, which leads to the ability to get more popularity.

I'm only speaking for France, but there the amount of money you can spend on your presidential campaign is heavily regulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_France

"Spending and financing of campaigns and political parties are highly regulated. There is a cap on spending, at approximately 20 million Euros, and a government public financing of 50% of spending. Advertising on TV is forbidden but official time is given to candidates on public TV. An independent agency regulates election and parties financing."

Here the amount a candidate can get per individual is highly regulated. Similar idea, I suppose...

 

[Bozo Erectus]

However, being a serious candidate will get you millions of dollars.

Good point, but you shouldnt have to need millions of dollars in the first place, to get your message out there. Isnt it troubling that our political leaders spend most of their time trying to raise money, instead of tackling the problems facing the country?

Although some of the money in the funds are the candidates' own (Romney gave himself a couple of million from his own pocket, but he's still millions ahead of Giuliani), pretty much all of it has to come from donors. Good candidates will be the popular ones who have a message which resonates with the people and a personality that many would like to see in the Oval Office. They will therefore get money from more donors.

In a healthy democracy, why does a man with one million dollars to donate have more influence than a man with one dollar?

A democratic form of government is, quite literally, a popularity contest. Popularity rakes in the donations, which leads to the ability to get more popularity.

Shouldnt we look at why so much is needed in the first place?

 

[Irish Caesar]

Good point, but you shouldnt have to need millions of dollars in the first place, to get your message out there. Isnt it troubling that our political leaders spend most of their time trying to raise money, instead of tackling the problems facing the country?

It is troubling in a way that the leaders aren't spending all their time trying to solve things, yes. But again, this is a "people rule" sort of thing; issues that people care about are going to raise more money than ones they don't. You shouldn't need millions to get your idea out there, but if people are willing to give you millions to get the idea to every corner of every state in the Union, that's the will of the people, is it not?

In a healthy democracy, why does a man with one million dollars to donate have more influence than a man with one dollar?

Shouldnt we look at why so much is needed in the first place?

Money pays for ads, signs, airtime. If someone can't get any backing, they didn't have a chance in the election anyway. If someone is very popular among people with little money, the name will get out. Gov. Dean made headlines before the 2004 primaries by getting tons of very small donations and having his supporters clog the internet tubes with stuff explaining why he should be elected. He was extremely popular before he imploded his own campaign.

Although I don't think that a rich man should have a better chance at office than a poor man if that's the only thing they have distinguishing them, I do think that someone who has a large amount of money must have done something right in many (not all!) cases. Gov. Romney was a successful businessman; he is popular among businessmen and will likely have the economy in mind. People gave him over $20M because they thought he'd be a good president. As long as money brings respect from the people who run the businesses and especially the Congress, money will be a factor. (Example: Sen. Kennedy was born rich, went to Harvard and screwed it up by getting kicked out for cheating, got back to Harvard, graduated, and went almost straight into the Senate to fill his brother's seat. Since then he's never left the Senate despite killing someone in a drunk driving car crash. But he's popular among people who matter and therefore, he's successful in politics. Terrible by the looks of it, but he's a good politician, so nothing else matters.)

Sure, I don't think that money should be needed to get a good message out, but the fact is that it is. And until someone figures out how to change that, that's the system we've got.

 

[Winner]

So, the one who raises the most money wins?

Well, basically... yes. But it's democratic, don't worry

 

[Masquerouge]

Here the amount a candidate can get per individual is highly regulated. Similar idea, I suppose...

similar but taken to the extreme. The goal is basically to ensure that all candidates will roughly all have the same amount of money available for the campaign, and the same amount of media exposure. So the limit applies to both private citizen gifts and corporation aid - actually I'm not even sure a business in France is allowed to give money to a presidential candidate.

The intention is a good one IMHO. It will never be a big enough of a help to allow a completely unknown candidate to win against well-known politicians, but at least it's not a matter of which party has the most money.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It is troubling in a way that the leaders aren't spending all their time trying to solve things, yes. But again, this is a "people rule" sort of thing; issues that people care about are going to raise more money than ones they don't. You shouldn't need millions to get your idea out there, but if people are willing to give you millions to get the idea to every corner of every state in the Union, that's the will of the people, is it not?

But sometimes the will of the people isnt the best thing. Thats not really the point though. The reason that so much money is needed is because the media is allowed to charge so much for political ads. Whats wrong with requiring the media to perform a public service on the public 'airways' and provide free air time to the candidates?

Money pays for ads, signs, airtime. If someone can't get any backing, they didn't have a chance in the election anyway. If someone is very popular among people with little money, the name will get out. Gov. Dean made headlines before the 2004 primaries by getting tons of very small donations and having his supporters clog the internet tubes with stuff explaining why he should be elected. He was extremely popular before he imploded his own campaign.

You seem to be making the assumption that just because right now the media can hoild democracy hostage by charging exorbitant rates for airtime, that its a good thing, and the system shouldnt be changed.

Although I don't think that a rich man should have a better chance at office than a poor man if that's the only thing they have distinguishing them, I do think that someone who has a large amount of money must have done something right in many (not all!) cases. Gov. Romney was a successful businessman; he is popular among businessmen and will likely have the economy in mind. People gave him over $20M because they thought he'd be a good president. As long as money brings respect from the people who run the businesses and especially the Congress, money will be a factor. (Example: Sen. Kennedy was born rich, went to Harvard and screwed it up by getting kicked out for cheating, got back to Harvard, graduated, and went almost straight into the Senate to fill his brother's seat. Since then he's never left the Senate despite killing someone in a drunk driving car crash. But he's popular among people who matter and therefore, he's successful in politics. Terrible by the looks of it, but he's a good politician, so nothing else matters.)

Thats a choice youre making. To believe that a businessman who makes alot of money is more trustworthy than other citizens.

Sure, I don't think that money should be needed to get a good message out, but the fact is that it is. And until someone figures out how to change that, that's the system we've got.

Thats the way it is because thats the way its been. It doesnt have to be that way in the future.

 

[Irish Caesar]

But sometimes the will of the people isnt the best thing. Thats not really the point though. The reason that so much money is needed is because the media is allowed to charge so much for political ads. Whats wrong with requiring the media to perform a public service on the public 'airways' and provide free air time to the candidates?

You seem to be making the assumption that just because right now the media can hoild democracy hostage by charging exorbitant rates for airtime, that its a good thing, and the system shouldnt be changed.

I'm not really passing judgement on the system, I don't think; I will say that the media, in deciding what to report and what not to, is the biggest threat to the free democratic system we have. The fact that they set prices for advertising isn't a problem, though; they'd charge the same to put 30 seconds of John McCain on the air as they would 30 seconds of Budweiser. Heaven knows the Bud is more popular anyway.

I suppose it forces candidates to be inventive as advertising becomes more expensive: more internet, more letters to the editor, more campaign trips to meet regular people might be in order. Which can only be good.

Thats a choice youre making. To believe that a businessman who makes alot of money is more trustworthy than other citizens.

I haven't said anything about him being trustworthy, just that he can make things happen. If you like what he's done, by all means, vote for him, because he can continue to make things happen that you like.

Personally, I don't like corruption in government. But if you happen to be a lobbyist, you love it, because it works for you. Someone with lots of connections will be able to play politics in back rooms and make the things you want to happen happen.

Thats the way it is because thats the way its been. It doesnt have to be that way in the future.

So how do you change that? Require media outlets to air ads for all candidates? Require candidates to use public funds? Neither is particularly good, although it would mean that money isn't what's making the world go 'round.

Although I don't like the idea of campaigns being so expensive, it's really basic economics. Candidates who get a lot of money drive up the price for the little guys.

 

[downtown]

btw Mitt Romney has raised $20 mill too.

Isn't a lot of that Mitt's money to begin with?

I'm concerned, even though I generally like Obama. First, this means that my man, Big Bill Richardson, is basically screwed, because the other three are going to have *all* the money.

Second, like others have pointed out, this has just become about who has the dough, instead of any substantive resume or policy issues. It isn't just with national elections...its even for local stuff! If running for office didnt cost thousands of dollars...even for a little rinky dink village, I would have done it already.

 

[Whomp]

Isn't a lot of that Mitt's money to begin with?

Doesn't sound like it. They're calling it seed money.

Romney's total included an unexpected asterisk: a $2.35 million loan from the candidate himself. In January, the Republican stunned the field by raising $6.5 million on a single day in which he invited his supporters to Boston and asked them to call their professional and social circles for donations.
He had 20 events during the 31 days of March. Along the way, he tapped extensive contacts from his work as a venture capitalist.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/03/2008.fundraising.ap/

I'm concerned, even though I generally like Obama. First, this means that my man, Big Bill Richardson, is basically screwed, because the other three are going to have *all* the money.

Second, like others have pointed out, this has just become about who has the dough, instead of any substantive resume or policy issues. It isn't just with national elections...its even for local stuff! If running for office didnt cost thousands of dollars...even for a little rinky dink village, I would have done it already

I'm not sure what's stopping Bill Richardson considering Obama received half of his 100,000 donations (he doubled Broom Hillary's total donors btw) over the internet.