The main thing here is commentary, but it is based on a set of events that seem to go unmentioned in here currently, so I'm using it to link to those stories and to kickstart a (probably shortlived) discussion.
[QUOTE]President Obama appeared at two recent fundraisers with some serious sticker shock.
[URL="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5haLL8kaquC1n3LQPCdPLSMm9UGMg?docId=6c54e384f9de4992977a7891a1be9967"]About 200 people ponied up at least $5,000 per ticket for an event hosted by Ricky Martin.[/URL] That was followed by a [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-courts-private-equity-cash-at-new-york-fundraiser/"]function at a private home where 60 people spent $38,500 each to get through the door.[/URL]
Just last week, [URL="http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_20602184/obamas-fundraising-visit-studio-city-thrills-fans-onlookers"]Obama -- with George Clooney -- raised $15 million in one night.[/URL] This makes me wonder how in the hell our political process became so distorted that Obama needs this much money to run for re-election. I thought we were broke? And yet, at the end of March, [URL="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/20/romney-releases-march-fundraising-figures/"]Obama and his presumed general election opponent, Mitt Romney, had raised nearly a combined $300 million, almost enough to fund Planned Parenthood's annual budget by themselves.[/URL]
Forget Wall Street, it's the campaign trail that needs to be occupied.
The median income in the United States is about $50,000, so I doubt very many 99 percenters are able to meet the $75,000 minimum [URL="http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/12535809-452/romney-to-collect-23-million-at-winnetka-fund-raiser-hosted-by-pat-ryan.html"]that was expected at a recent Romney fundraiser.[/URL][B][Note: Author got this wrong- minimum donation was $2.5k to attend, $25k for the dinner, $50-$75k VIP option.][/B] Did you know the goal of the RNC is to [URL="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/800-million-target-for-romney-campaign-and-republican-committee/"]raise $800 million by November?[/URL] Imagine how many families could be helped if just half of that was used to train people for the new job market, as opposed to being spent to help one guy get hired?[/QUOTE]
News ends here. Commentary begins here.
[QUOTE]Face it, the president and Romney may have different political and economic views, but they are both propped up by highly affluent power brokers who are expecting big returns for the big checks they are writing.
This is why the worst thing to happen to our process was the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which allows corporations (and unions) to spend unlimited funds to promote a candidate. This is akin to handing the keys of a bakery to the Cookie Monster. These big spenders are not just involved in shaping dialogue. They get involved with shaping policy, which inevitably makes the good of the people secondary to the good of the deepest pockets.
We don't just need campaign reform, we need roadblocks to prevent special interest groups from turning the democratic process into more of a sham that it already is.
Let the Supreme Court keep its ridiculous ruling, but set a limit on the amount of money candidates can raise and spend on their campaigns. Require all ads and debates to be aired on public television, and then cap the number of hours each party is allowed to use during the general election.
By putting it on public television, we stop large media conglomerates from profiting from the process. So, ideally Obama and Romney would both get $10 million and 40 hours of advertisement to state their case.
Let's take away the $200 million war chests that Obama has been able to amass in both 2008 and 2012, and force him and future candidates to find a way to persuade the country to vote for them without relying on their ability to outspend their opponent.
I know, I know, Romney wouldn't even be in the position he's in without outspending -- and dare I say, bullying -- his opponents.
By leveling the economic playing field, our politicians have a chance to return to being representatives of the people, not just the ones who know the right people or make the right promises.
Before making the rounds in New York on Monday, President Obama tweeted a sentence from the commencement speech he gave at Barnard College: "Don't just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for your seat at the head of the table." He left out the part about needing $5,000 to get in the door so you can even see the table.
But I guess those messy details are easy to overlook in a country with an 8.1% unemployment rate, whose leaders still find it appropriate to hold fundraisers for rich people.[/QUOTE]
A++ democracy right there.
This author doesn't appear to understand that even $1b is a drop in the bucket for the federal budget
[QUOTE=scout1;35975384]This author doesn't appear to understand that even $1b is a drop in the bucket for the federal budget[/QUOTE]
this poster doesn't seem to understand the point the article is making
[QUOTE=scout1;35975384]This author doesn't appear to understand that even $1b is a drop in the bucket for the federal budget[/QUOTE]
I think that's only a lesser problem next to the fact the democracy is no longer about everyone being able to voice their opinion but only everyone with money being able to.
You have no money? Nobody gives a fuck.
[QUOTE=scout1;35975384]This author doesn't appear to understand that even $1b is a drop in the bucket for the federal budget[/QUOTE]
Which is completely irrelevant to the point of the article, which you obviously didn't read carefully enough.
This isn't about a federal budget, this is about campaign contributions, which go into a different budget entirely.
[QUOTE=archangel125;35975408]Which is completely irrelevant to the point of the article, which you obviously didn't read carefully enough.
This isn't about a federal budget, this is about campaign contributions, which go into a different budget entirely.[/QUOTE]
[quote] Did you know the goal of the RNC is to raise $800 million by November? [B]Imagine how many families could be helped if just half of that was used to train people for the new job market, as opposed to being spent to help one guy get hired?[/B][/quote]
[QUOTE=scout1;35975384]This author doesn't appear to understand that even $1b is a drop in the bucket for the federal budget[/QUOTE]
What do you think a bucket of water is composed of?
Your inability to read notwithstanding, your point isn't even a valid one.
[QUOTE=scout1;35975412]im slapping the keyboard hoping to make a point[/QUOTE]
i think you're still severely missing the point here
yes the money raised by these candidates is insignificant compared to the existing budget but the argument is primarily that our election process is controlled by the rich via campaign contributions that total unimaginably huge numbers for the average american, better uses for that money is a secondary argument and still perfectly valid. are you saying that it wouldn't be a better use of this money to go to training people for the job market? because if not there's no reason for you to keep iterating this point
Well, if anything we need to get these monied interests out of our electoral process.
I'd like to see the day when some average joe can become president, but I doubt that'll ever happen.
Well, I remember that as soon as the amount of money Obama lobbied for was released for his 2008 election, it was thought that the 2012 election would pass the billion dollar marker, so this isn't all that surprising for me.
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;35975464]I'd like to see the day when some average joe can become president, but I doubt that'll ever happen.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, that's the day HL3 comes out.
Looks like the commentary began at the very beginning of this article. Though we'll never know since OP didn't post his source, like the rules say.
I'm all for a democracy where the campaign for each candidate is the same. ( I mean aesthetically. Not the Ideas. ) And the only thing different would be their speeches and their values etc...
Or perhaps two colors for the background/text for the posters that will be shown outside the voting halls. Dunno, but publicity is meant to promote a product not a president.
But that is just how I see it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
