The New York Tines today gas ab interesting, if somewhat negative, spin on the issue of campaign financing. Ut offers, as a solution, an increase in the amount of public (federal tac sollars) funding for elections.
I’m sorry, but that really is a piss-poor solution. Ratherm we need VERY strict limits on the amount any one person or entity, like a corporation or union can donate in a given year to any candidate and party, as well as making PACs and such totally illegal.
As Senator Obama, who the Times also, in its ignorance, chastises for being “a fundraising prodigy,” has shown, it is possible to raise lots of money from small donors – if you offer them a REAL choice in candidates.
AND, besides severely limituing ths size of each donation, putting some real restrictions on how much a candidate can spend on media advertising as well as how much the media moguls can charge for polirical advertising would be a big help toward cleaning up the American electoral process. Adter all, candidates get lots of free press and there is that equal time rule. Maybe if we got that we might even see some real objectivity in the media.
Oh yeah, one more thing, let’s make it illegal for any form of public media – print or electronic – to endorse any candidate. How can you be objective when the company that pays your salary is endorsing a candidate?
Finally, given the fact that Obama is such a fundraising prodigy, maybe he’ll give that public funding back to the government to help pay for universal health care. Would not surprise me if he did. If he does, I want to see the editor who wrote that editorial publicly eat hus words – literally! Say on Davud Letternan as a Stupid Pet Trick.