The candidates get in early because they have to raise the money to compete. The media only features the candidates' attacks and mistakes because they want audience and money. The lobbyists give and raise the money because they want to make more money.
Most of the candidates will drop out because they can't raise enough money to compete. The ones who stay in will forego federal matching funds so they will have no limits on the money they can raise and no limits on the money they can spend.
And all for a system in which 99% of the voters in November will not have had any say at all on what two names they must choose from for the most important office in the world. (Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina will, but you won't.)
There's a better way. It's called Unity08. The people (any and all who are registered to vote, all of them) can be delegates to vote online in the first national primary in American history – and put a Unity Ticket (one R, one D, whatever order) on the ballot in all 50 states. And then the ten million delegates turn around and fund that ticket with $100,000,000 all in contributions of $100 or less.
You sign up. You pick. You fund. You elect. You take your country back.
Subscribe
UnityTeam: In all of your online material you keep mentioning this online convention and direct people where to go to sign up. Everytime I do I hit a brick wall. Could you inform me what is the deal? Are we automatically signed up for this? If this is the case I would appreciate some feedback on this. Thank You
An Independent
I have had this same experience and I cannot help but wonder that this “convention” is rigged. The fact that campaign finance reform seems to be the only issue here in shoutbox is even more reason why I believe this convention is rigged. I gather you can be a delegate only if you support the leadership’s agenda.
Could you send me an email link where I can reach you outside of shoutbox (yet another sign that the convention is rigged)? Jeafla @ basicisp.net
If you are opposed to Big Money in politics, then why are you signed on as a plaintiff in a lawsuit by Unity08 -- the explicitly stated purpose of which is to declare FEC money limits unconstitutional and to give Unity08 the go-ahead to take unlimited big money contributions?
I do not understand the discrepancy. Please explain it.
========
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
Yep, there is is .. I mean why would supporters/lobbiests/corporations spend so much money for a campaign unless there were things that they got back? I mean to think that self interest is somehow suspended for a political campaign is illogical. To figure that the campaign contributions come with expectations is very reasonable.
We all know that, its obvious.
I can't say the same about Unity08, I don't see them as being the ones in power, the ones elected are. So its a little different. Supporting Unity, you don't know what you may get, so there are no strings attached to the candidate. We are not electing Unity08, we are electing an executive branch leader.
While the Public finance of Presidential elections is have less and less relevance, perhaps it could have more and more relevances to House and Senate Races.
It would be an improvement for candidates to cut the amount they need to take from special interests in half.
Most presidential candidates that have any chance at all of winning refuse to accept public money because they don’t want to abide by the spending limits that come with that money.
Why should we expect House and Senate candidates to do anything different?
And I still maintain that it is not money, but rather ideas and campaign style that determines who wins an election. Some people wouldn’t consider voting for a Kucinich under any circumstances because they don’t like his ideas or his looks. Some people would vote for a JFK no matter what his ideas are because of his looks. It is the shallowness of the electorate rather than the money of the candidates that is the real problem in American politics.
BTW: The public money that goes to presidential candidates is donated by people that file federal income tax returns. This money is not collected as a tax and no one is forced to donate money to a presidential candidate. So are the people here at Unity08 that are pushing public financing of campaigns talking about using donated money, or will the money be collected through taxes?
public funding of campaigns will have to be enacted at the state level before it can stand a chance of being passed at the national level. Hilary Clinton has already said she will not accept public money in her campaign because of the restrictions which come with it. I believe it is the only way to end the influence private interests (far too much in my mind) have over our elected representatives. You obviously don't, and I am sure many share your opinion, in the end it will simply come down to which side is in the majority and that is the way it should be.
An Independent
What's the difference between a private interest and a public interest? If an individual citizen or a non-government corporation or association has a concern, isn't it a "private" interest? How do you limit a private interest without violating someone's rights?
News Flash, folks. There is ALREADY a public campaign finance system for the Presidential Primary and election, but according to today’s NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/us/politics/23donate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
… the fund has faced chronic shortfalls as the percentage of taxpayers contributing has declined to less than 10 percent last year from over 30 percent in the 1970s.
Here is my proposal:
Unity’08 should start a full-blown campaign – including education, petitions & bumper stickers to get people to check the $3 check mark on their taxes this year. There is a widespread misunderstanding that 1) Checking off $3 increases your taxes by that amount (it doesn’t) and 2)Public Campaign Financing gives money to “those dirty politicians”
In particular, I propose:
* A 2-week poll on this web site to “Name the Campaign” (hopefully something better than “Check-off, Aye?”). People should also brainstorm about how to implement this campaign.
* A separate poll to design the bumper sticker. Unity’08 members could donate soley to this project (a la MoveOn.org) and get a bumper sticker that exhorts people to do this.
Thoughs, ideas?...
I was amazed that they picked Jim Webb to deliver their response to Bush's State of the Union speech. Webb was so negative and confrontational in his response. Its a sad commentary that they picked a person who has already shown a disrespectful penchant in the past.
What does that say about how things are and where they are going? Its an obvious attempt to increase the partisanship we see not diffuse it. Partisanship is their way to split the electorate, to keep feeding us two hand picked candidates beholden to the king makers in the back rooms.
It makes clear that the fundamental problem is how the candidates are chosen and how that is influenced by, no let’s say it as it is, CONTROLLED BY, those forces and their interests behind the scenes. These are the folks that hand out the money. Take the money out of the equation and you take away their ability to tamper with the election process.
The question is "Who is the they that chose Webb?" They are part of the king makers and they need to go -- exposed for what they are, election tampering self-interest serving king makers.
I wouldn't be so quick to conclude this problem exists only at the presidential level. The presidential primary/caucus voters (and especially the national convention delegates) tend to be the more extreme members of a party. Presidential wannabes play to their party’s extremes in order to be nominated.
But the members of Congress are just as partisan when they are chosen with their single (or single and run-off) primary elections. They do not become partisans simply because they end up in D.C.
Historically the voters in Iowa tend to be more liberal than the voters in New Hampshire and a candidate that wins Iowa has usually lost NH (Bush and Reagan in 1980; Dole and Bush in 1988). It would be better if these two states did not have so much influence. The number of primary election/caucus days should be reduced and on any given day in the process no fewer than 5 states should choose their convention delegates.
A better system would be to take the 15 largest states (enough to win the White House if they all vote the same way) and pair each one in a group with enough of the remaining states to have just as much population. Then the states within a given group would choose their convention delegates on the same day. Candidates would have to concentrate on multiple states from the start. They would not be as able to saturate any given state with money so money would be less important.
Webb is not your typical politician. Htell it like he sees it and is doing no more than what the ISG and many Repubs (Hagel, Warner, Coleman, etc) have suggested. He's a no-nonsense Marine telling the hard truths and ticking people off (i.e. political courage) that need to be ticked off and Thank God he is in there inthe Senate! I'm just waiting for him to tick off the Pelosi/Reid crowd when he does not tow the line to hisliking. Stay tuned on that!
And I agree with you flaja on the Iowa Caucus and Primary thing - lousy way to pick Presidents and we end up picking lousy ones because of the stilted process. Being from Iowa originally and going back there several times ayear to visit family and friends, all I can say is God Love the People of Iowa but it is a LOUSY way to pick a President. Despite the contact with the peoplein Iowa, it still comes down to money and media as determinants. Only 15% of the registered Democratic/Republican voters actually participate inthem and most of them who do do not understand the convoluted rules that they run by. The whole "contact with the people" hype in Iowa is just that media hype! Plus logistically forthe media organizations it is so much easier to focus their resources in small state like Iowa and NH rather than spread around to the big ones. (It is a real gravy-train for the Iowa business/economy) All inall it still comes down to money, media access, and the activist fringe that determines the candidate before others get a fair swipe at it. But God Love the people of Iowa!!
There should be a sysytem of primaries much like you suggested flaja. We would get better candidates on the ballot I feel and a better vetting of the issues. The activists, media, and NH/Iowa would be stauchly opposed though and that willbe a tough nut for the respective parties to crack!
The people are not happy. We see the jolly few on T.V. Those whos sons don't die while cash is being made hand over fist by the war machine as the profits outway their pain. I am lucky and educated in computers as both sons have chosen not to serve and have private sector careers. But I still cry for these young men headed for this meat grinder when as a Airforce Intel veteran I know we own the skies and those technologies that comes with it. God forgive us. - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I must not have communicated this well above but I also believe that the partisanship is at all levels of federal, state and local government. The partisanship is the way the elite keep us citizens fighting between us instead of banding together and kicking all the self interest driven elected officials out!!
What I am saying is that they promote partisanship and use it as a tool to gain control of the few over the many, the special interests over the greater good.
It seems rather a simple solution, but with a very complicated path to achieve it. This government was intended to be of the people, for the people and by the people, but "the people" have turned into a group of well trained politicians with many special interests who are motivated by large dollar amounts.
We need to strengthen this country and our system by utilizing the common people of this nation. We have an abundance of intelligent citizens that have the ability to communicate and express the concerns and requests of the American people. Somehow this country needs to be led by the masses, while being governed by the few elected officials, whom are now assuming the duties and decisions for all of us. Our politicians have so much to gain by deviating from the wishes of their constituents to appease lobbyists and special interest groups. How can we expect an honest decision, when the majority of decisions have a monetary motivation attached to the outcome?
The main problem is how to add common citizens to the ranks so that they may oversee and advise our leaders. How can we call this a democracy, when the majority of us have so little input in the decisions that are made for and affect all of us?
The misrepresentations and important details that are not made known to the public, are some examples of how the citizens of America are kept out of the loop, intentionally, and then expected to vote for candidates based on partial details and that which we are permitted to know. One has to ask how we can make accurate, informed decisions and choices regarding voting politicians into office, if we are privy to so few details before we vote?
All of the rhetoric about efforts of bipartisanship after the midterms and we are back to having stalemates on the very core issues and concerns that are facing this nation. Our nation cannot continue to flourish with the patisanship and opposition that we currently have.
While the party system that we have used to date has served a great purpose in shaping and maintaining this country, it is obvious that it has been twisted and destorted into a system that is now failing due to all of the pandering and favors that our politicians have been permitted to accept which influence their decisions. The decisions for the country should be made by those who have no other interests BUT the country and it's well-being.
By adding citizens to the ranks to oversee the actions and decisions of our policy makers and political candidates and by disallowing the monetary influences that are currently permitted, we should be able to reform our sytem into one that truly serves the people of this country and not just those who are elected officials and have much to gain by favoring those with the most funds to offer.
Until this outrageous ability for politicians and candidates to collect unlimited monies and favors is somehow reformed, we can never see the true interests of the people and the country addressed and we can be assured that our policies will be mandated by those with the biggest wallets. Our candidates must be worthy of the offices they run for and they must be evaluated on merit, not decided and nominated based on who has the most money to spend to get their rhetoric out to the masses.
In what other profession can you state your goals, have job duties and descriptions imposed, commit to accomplish certain tasks in order to be hired ... and then once hired, divert from most of those things to follow a path that differs from all of the promises and expectations of your position? Where is the accountability? Why are our politicians not expected to perform their jobs appropriately, without fear of being replaced prior to a term expiring, if they are in fact NOT performing their jobs efficiently and effectively?
We must somehow remove the monetary motivation from this process and begin running this system on merit and accomplishment and with inclusion and participation of our common citizens.
I am an old hippie from the 60's, and I am sorry to say that almost EVERYTHING we marched against in the 60's came true. I find it very distressing that elections in our country are related to how much money a person can come up with, and not what they stand for. I am convinced that another PEACEFUL revolution is necessary to take our country back from the lawyers, lobbyists, and unethical politicians. My only concern is that the revolution will not end up peaceful-which is MANDITORY!
Why are lobbyists, politicians, and corporate management/ceo's all millionaires? I retired from teaching elementary school, and struck it poor!
I love my country, but I hate my government!