Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS Overturns Millionaire's Amendment (171 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Lamont (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oceanview, brein

    It is what it is. Lamont had to spend large amounts to remain competitive. If he hadn't the resources he would not have defeated Lieberman in the primary.

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:45:49 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I understand that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brein

      The issue is that only a multi-millionaire could take on an incumbent Senator.  That is a problem imo.  Further, you could have a perfectly fabulous candidate who is not a multi-millionaire - the real deal as a public servant, but for practical purposes have to abandon that candidate for some multi-millionaire all because the challenger is a multi-millionaire.  That is a big problem because you aren't picking a candidate first for his or her skills, talent, policies, ideals etc. - instead you're checking their bank account to qualify them first.  I think that it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt during the Bush Presidency that being a multi-millionaire doesn't necessarily mean you are going to be a good public servant.

      Things get really ugly in smaller and poorer Congressional districts especially.  The richest guy in town now has even more special access to political power which is pretty unsavory.

      •  This is not a new phenomenon (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        heliosfootball

        It's just not a Bush presidency problem. Going back hundreds of years the well-financed have always had a huge advantage.

        The richest guys buy Senate seats or try to become Governor, or in someone like Bloomberg's case Mayor of New York.

        I'll also take the contrary view that when people here extol the virtues of a candidate who has no money versus a well-financed incumbent who has all those benefits plus the additional resources they're just not being realistic.

        Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

        by Scarce on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:12:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I understand that this is not new. (0+ / 0-)

          I think I made that clear in my first comment.

          However, the notion that the levers of power are only accessible to the richest amongst us - especially in a time when the gap between rich and poor is widening more and more - does not bode well for egalitarianism in our country or for the integrity of the democracy.

          I don't reject rich candidates outright just because they are rich - but I do reject the notion that personal wealth should be a requirement for running for office.  I don't like the idea that Bloomberg could buy the White House for himself.  Oddly, I'd be a lot more comfortable if someone bought it for him and much happier if small groups of people couldn't buy political offices at all.  But the notion that Mitt Romney could buy the White House for him and his family without being beholden to anyone, that I find most offensive out of the options.

          Truth be told - if we aren't going to go to straight public financing - I'm starting to agree with my Father's position that we should do away will all of the limitations on donations - keep tracking the donor lists - but make the donations unlimited again and go from there - but I'd still probably limit the amount a candidate and his or her family could donate under that scenario - at least then they'd be beholden to someone other than themselves.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site