What does campaign cash say about a candidate?

To me, it says that it's time for public campaign financing, and an end to massive corporate donations.

Are you suggesting candidates only receive the public subsidy, and perhaps not use their own money?

Do you follow the donations to see who is cashing checks, and where the funds originate?

"Are you suggesting candidates only receive the public subsidy, and perhaps not use their own money? "

It needs to be capped, in order to level the playing field. We cannot continue to let this country's only choice for leadership be those with massive wealth and powerful connections.

I honestly don't know the mechanics of how it would be worked, necessarily, but I would definitely take draconian-like steps to remove corporate and private-wealth influence from our politics altogether. It's destroying our democracy.

It certainly would level the playing field, and give a baseline for how candidates handle the budget they're given.

What does HOW a candidate manages their funds say about that individual?

So where would Education Minnesota, NOW, AFL/CIO, MoveOn.org, and Planned Parenthood spend their money?

So you are telling me that if all campaigns had limits and government funding that these groups would just abide by them and not try to influence elections?

So candidates running in say, South Dakota, will have to say, "sorry, I can't take anymore more money from Planned Parenthood, because I'm at my spending limit"?

Think Planned Parenthood will just say "OK" that candidate's at their limit, we can't influence that election anymore.

"It needs to be capped, in order to level the playing field. We cannot continue to let this country's only choice for leadership be those with massive wealth and powerful connections. "

Like Narl, NOW, Planned Parenthood, Education Unions, Hollywood, AFL/CIO, AFSME, those big money interest groups are OK, right?

You think that Planned Parenthood(or any other interest group) would sit back and watch after they reached their government mandated spending limit on an important issue? Wouldn't they just splinter off into many different groups with the same objective with different names?

THEY WILL FIND A WAY AROUND IT. ALWAYS HAVE, ALWAYS WILL.

Keep singing Kumbaya folks.

FULL DISCLOSURE. All candidates must not, by law, cash any campaign check over a certain amount, say $1000, until it has been posted on their website or a govenment website for a week. This disclosure must give name, amount, address, and people on their board of directors if a corporation. There would be enough watchdogs on both sides of the aisle, and the media, watching this that you would have nothing to hide.

The more laws you make, the more creative people get. MoveOn.org was a way to get around the MCCainFeingold Act. New laws mean new ways to finance elections.

Money will always influence politics, always has, always will. Politicians will always be "bought" whether its by the NARL or the NRA. It's just in who you think is better, which we all disagree. I don't like the idea of George Soros spending all his billions on campaigns under the guise of a half dozen or so "public interest" groups, I also want to know what drug company is paying what "public interest" group also.

I think both sides win on this.

Should George Soros be able to spend as much as he wants to get his candidate elected? Should the AFL/CIO be able to spend as much money as they want to get their candidate elected? Should Planned Parenthood be able to spend as much as they want to so that Michelle Bachman doesn't get elected?

So, what you are saying is that Gerorge Soros isn't spending enough money?

Or the ultra rich of Hollywood or the ultra rich that meet at the Kaplan's condo in Minneapolis?

I think there are problems with campaign financing. I don't like the amount of money being spent but I admit to being a realist. I said that from the start. I think that laws that try to limit that amount are naive in nature. The more we make laws, the more people will find a way around them. Like I tell my 10 year old son, "the fair is in August" elections have never been "fair" and won't ever be. I would hate to be a Republican in Chicago, talk about fair. I am a realist, I believe that both sides of the politcal aisle can spend what they want, because they have strong beliefs. I just want it to be out in the open, so you, and I know who's gettting the money and who's spending the money, whether it's National Abortion Rights League, the Trial Lawyers, or Bristol Myers or Halliburton.

The current system now requires that special interests make up these 527 groups that we don't really know who's spending the money, whether it's George Soros or Pfiser. I don't like it. It just makes the game sneakier.

I trust the American public's judgement if full disclosure were provided. Both the watchdogs and the media will help mold America's vote.

I'm just the realist. Money and politics will always be there. I just want it above the table, you still think it can be curbed.

Did you two just agree? *grin*

Sometimes I wonder if full disclosure shouldn't also mean clear disclosure. Some of those campaign cash reports read like practice for cracking the Wehrmacht Enigma.

YEP! CLEAR DISCLOSURE! I'm tired of watching ads that say they are from "this or that interest group" but not really knowing who they are, and then finding out that that "touchy feely warm and fuzzy" group is really a front for a labor union or drug company.