I've been sort of sour about this topic for some time now. I find it embarassing that so much of our electorate system is based on the money a candidate has/is capable of raising. Shouldn't we focus more on the important things, for instance, WHAT THEY CAN DO FOR OUR COUNTRY? Can you imagine what we could do if people were willing to donate that kind of money to charities to feed the poor, cure cancer, find a vaccine for AIDs, etc. It sort of makes me sick to think about it. In the 2004 election Bush raised nearly $370 million, Kerry raised nearly $330 million, and the other candidates together raised nearly $7 million. Doesn't anyone else find this ABSURD? We can't feed the poor, we can't give proper healthcare to Americans, we can't make sure the elderly can have their medication at a decent price, but we can raise nearly $707 million for presidential campaigns! For what... them to stay in hotels, travel the country, and put ads on TV that cause us all to change the channel out of annoyance anyway? A bit ridiculous.
What's even worse is how the parties are playing into this. Parties consider candidates able to raise the most money the most 'worthy' of their vote. COME ON! That has NOTHING to do with ability to lead this country. Look at Bush, the guy raised more money than any president in history, and currently has less than a 50% approval rate among Americans. I find our society to be so driven by money that it hardly sits back and looks at what is more important, like intelligence for example.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/15/magic-johnson-raises-money-for-democrat/#more-1973
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index_2004.asp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It is a real shame that we follow a candidate's image or political party rather than their actual positions on the issues. The media is probably to blame for this. They provide a quick way to show the candidates as they interact and bicker with each other instead of where they stand them selves.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this issue, and actually, I kind mentioned that on my blog. Anyways, it is sad that "Average Joe American" or someone with great ideas on how to lead their district or even the country can not get elected to office. Money drives everything, especially in a capitalist world. How is a lawmaker that makes over six figures a year representing my views and interests? I don't make that kind of money.
I completeley agree with you that too much money goes into candidate races. Yes, it is important to raise money to promote candidates and their issues, but its not as important as spending this money on nation.
I feel you bring up a strong point. The election process has become so image oriented that it seems it has become even more important than the actual stance on issues that the candidates have. Since election races have become so image conscious now candidates have to spend more money for ads, travel, etc. when that money, as you have stated, could be put to much better use. Overall the candidates should just focus on the issues, obviously money is going to have to be spent in order to send out their message, but do they really need to spend $300 million to do it? Seems a little ridiculous to me.
I also agree that money corrupts our political candidates and gives to much political influence into the hands of the wealthy upper 5% of the population. I believe the solution to this problem lies in strong campaign financing laws such as caps on the amount of money a candidate can spend on a race and strong controls on special interest spending. In my opinion, the only things a candidate needs to run is a website, readily available policy platform literature, the ability to attend publicly funded and broadcasted debates, a small professional campaign staff, and the assistance of however many dedicated volunteers the candidate can muster.
I also agree that too much money is spent(or wasted) during campaigns. I can also imagine how hard it is to stop competition for income in such a race like Bush's and Kerry's. It seem like once something gets going, it becomes uncontrollable. Some would apply the Iraq war to this statement...
I don't really know what kind of a solution could be implemented to use the money wisely. When candidates are always trying to "one-up" each other its hard to not get greedy.
I definitely agree with Shannon's view on this subject. We as a society are in a sad state of affairs when 'he who has the most money' gets to run our country. It also says something about our society and how we are removed from our government. If we were a group of well-informed, active voters the money put into a candidate would have less bearing. We have to be realistic, there would still be some influence due to outlets such as the media. People can be swayed and money can help afford the ability to do that. This influence would be diminished to some degree if as a whole the American people were more active in their government. We, the people, are supposed to have the power to control our government and we are not using that wonderful gift as much as we should be using it.
Post a Comment