Skip to main content

View Diary: CA-Gov: Respected Field Poll calls it a coin flip (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And Where She Got It (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, emsprater, jck

    The idea that a rich person can spend unlimited amounts of money campaigning is exactly opposite to the limits we place on other people giving them money to campaign on.

    Whitman didn't print that money in her mint. She got it from other people, by doing things for them. Evidently she was paid hundreds of $millions for really bad work, like helping McCain to lose in 2008, running HP into the ground. The people who gave her that money that she's spending to run clearly are owed favors by her as surely as if they'd directly given her the money as campaign donations - which would illegally exceed legal limits.

    Rich people shouldn't have an advantage in buying races for themselves. That's obvious even before the question of where their money came from is asked. But that question shows how rich people's campaigns are an urgent and essential problem in our feeble defenses from money buying elections.

    No donations directly to individual candidates should be legal. Any donation should be divided equally among all candidates competing in that race. Including donations by candidates to themselves. That simple rule would be easy to enforce, totally fair, and fund all candidates to compete equally, while dramatically cutting the expenses spent on campaign special effects that only distort the entire process in every way.

    That simple reform would have probably the most comprehensive effects in fixing our teeming political ills.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 08:59:09 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site