This is what running America, is apparently all about

[walksalone]

It's not about who's actually going to do the best job, but...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-republican-party-raise-101-3-million-july-040302849.html

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-coming-close-beach-143039714.html

[sd'sker]

in the thread title, you spelled 'ruining' incorrectly.

[walksalone]

in the thread title, you spelled 'ruining' incorrectly.

 

[knapplc]

We need to drastically shorten the presidential race. Qualifications would be 100% transparency of your finances, your fincancial supporters, your entire platform with nothing held back, and your full employment history.

 

The election season can run for four months, including primaries, conventions and the general election.

 

This years-long campaigning is terrible for this country. An incumbent president can't give his full attention to running the country because he's campaigning for reelection for 1/4th of his time in office. Senators and congressmen spend so much time campaigning they're rarely in office getting stuff done. And there are too many ways (PACs, SuperPACs, Extra Super SuperPacs) for politicians to be bought so it's too hard for us, the voters, to know what we're getting into with these people.

 

 

[sd'sker]

We need to drastically shorten the presidential race. Qualifications would be 100% transparency of your finances, your fincancial supporters, your entire platform with nothing held back, and your full employment history.

 

The election season can run for four months, including primaries, conventions and the general election.

 

This years-long campaigning is terrible for this country. An incumbent president can't give his full attention to running the country because he's campaigning for reelection for 1/4th of his time in office. Senators and congressmen spend so much time campaigning they're rarely in office getting stuff done. And there are too many ways (PACs, SuperPACs, Extra Super SuperPacs) for politicians to be bought so it's too hard for us, the voters, to know what we're getting into with these people.

double secret extra super superpacs.

[carlfense]

I'd add that individual donors have given more than $230 million to super PACs. 57% of that $230 million comes from just 47 people. Mind boggling.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/influence-industry-small-group-makes-big-dent-on-super-pac-individual-donations-study-says/2012/08/01/gJQAupaGRX_story.html

[zoogs]

Campaign finance reform is something that's badly needed, although I do not really know the best way to go about it. I'm not bothered at all by the fact that a very few hold a very large portion of the country's wealth. I am extremely disturbed that the politically motivated very few have such campaign-buying power.

 

Elections should not be "let the market decide" endeavors.

 

I feel like in principle, publicly-financed-only campaigns should be the way to go, but I don't know if this is practically a good solution. Or even feasible.

[carlfense]

Campaign finance reform is something that's badly needed, although I do not really know the best way to go about it. I'm not bothered at all by the fact that a very few hold a very large portion of the country's wealth. I am extremely disturbed that the politically motivated very few have such campaign-buying power.

 

Elections should not be "let the market decide" endeavors.

 

I feel like in principle, publicly-financed-only campaigns should be the way to go, but I don't know if this is practically a good solution. Or even feasible.

I think that we can all agree that something needs to be changed.

 

I'd support full disclosure laws as a beginning.

[Moiraine]

It will never be changed, no matter how right it is. PACs were made legal in the 70s iirc.

 

This is a major flaw of capitalism, imo. With enough money you can buy peoples' morality. Politicians rarely vote for what is right (or what they think is right), they vote for whatever companies pay them the most to vote for.

[lo country]

Term limits. Allow constituents to recall elected officials on a vote of "no confidence", full financial disclosure, an actual background investigation performed by the same folks that issue .mil and.gov types their security clearances, a listing of all financials to include foreign assets (would be found in afore mentioned background). Campaign finance reform, make it illegal for the incumbents to travel on the publics dime while "campaigning", make them travel on the same per diem as .gov and .mil employees etc.....

 

Todays politicians no longer see themselves as public servants, but as people whom the public serves.

 

Sadly, neither side is immune from my above comments or even the two articles ref above. IIRC, Obama ushered in the "spend it til you win it" mentality.

[HSKR]

We talk about how the politicians and parties win by getting these huge chunks of money. We talk about how the special interest groups win by buying votes to further their cause but these discussions always seem to leave out one group that benefits and may benefit the most from this, the media, since this is where almost all the money ends up via advertising. It doesn't matter if you are Fox News, MSNBC, the Journal Star or WOWT, because at the end of the day you love this because it pays the bills. Do you really think any media outlet wants to see any sort of reduction in campaign financing?

[ZRod]

That's a really good point HSKR and one I've never considered before. I think it's even more fitting in these times to consider what that money invested into a local public or private infrastructure and jobs would do for an economy.

[walksalone]

Thats a hell of a point HSKR. Imagine how screwed if all these "unbiased" media outlets had to actually report news, instead of finding something to put a spin on to make America scared of it, and tell them why they should be scared of it.

[knapplc]

We talk about how the politicians and parties win by getting these huge chunks of money. We talk about how the special interest groups win by buying votes to further their cause but these discussions always seem to leave out one group that benefits and may benefit the most from this, the media, since this is where almost all the money ends up via advertising. It doesn't matter if you are Fox News, MSNBC, the Journal Star or WOWT, because at the end of the day you love this because it pays the bills. Do you really think any media outlet wants to see any sort of reduction in campaign financing?

 

 

+1 to you, sir. This is also very much worth mentioning.

[strigori]

Campaign finance reform is something that's badly needed, although I do not really know the best way to go about it. I'm not bothered at all by the fact that a very few hold a very large portion of the country's wealth. I am extremely disturbed that the politically motivated very few have such campaign-buying power.

 

Elections should not be "let the market decide" endeavors.

 

I feel like in principle, publicly-financed-only campaigns should be the way to go, but I don't know if this is practically a good solution. Or even feasible.

I think that we can all agree that something needs to be changed.

 

I'd support full disclosure laws as a beginning.

Transparency is something that there is not even a half assed argument against. Though there are some in congress trying right now, when a couple years ago they were all for transparency.