Is the future of our country worth investing in?

[Ivan Seeking]

Or the one with the richest people voting for them. The one with 50 poor supporters able to donate $20 will have less available than the candidate with one rich supporter able to donate $2000.

This is what the internet is changing. Obama is getting the lion's share of his money from small donors and beating the pants off of all other candidates. This is also what has made Ron Paul's candidacy possible.

It really shouldn't matter this late in the game. Early in the campaign, before the candidates have all had a chance to make their positions known, it's more important to have funds to get the word out. At this stage, if you don't know what their positions are on the issues and can't make a decision based on the information you already have, then I don't see how seeing more signs posted around town and more TV ads of the same content is going to help. They're just giving the same speech over and over again. If they haven't gotten their message across by now, they're doing a miserable job communicating the message then.

They will still spend buckets of money in Texas, Ohio, Penn, etc. In fact the most spending is done right before the election, for advertising. And let's not forget that Kerry was swift-boated through advertising.

If the advertising didn't work then they wouldn't spend millions and millions to advertise.

Candidates should all start out on a level playing field with the same amount of money to spend on a campaign, and let the votes not the cash determine who wins.

The problem is that not all candidates are equal. The flow of money is what separates the weak candidates from the strong ones. And it can certainly make the difference in a tight race. I too wish there was a better way but for now this is what we have. The great thing is that for the first time ever, the small donors are making the difference. Note also that a number of candidates resigned the race due to a lack of money.

I love the internet!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even though McCain abandoned his pledge to take only public funding, today he is trying to hold Obama to that pledge for one simple reason: McCain sees the online donations and knows that he can't even begin to compete.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, one more thought: It's not just the big donors, it's the people who have the ability to raise a great deal of money. These are the rich old white guys that I mentioned. And of course there are a wealth of special interest groups, but the internet supercedes these tradtional sources of money though shear numbers.

The way that I see it, the internet is adding a completely new dimension to the democratic process that makes it far more democratic - it takes control away from those who control the big money groups and allows everyone to play an additional role in the election process. And really, less starving students and the like whose day will come soon enough, if you aren't willing to invest $20 in the election process then you really shouldn't vote; much less be willing to send soldiers out to die for this country.

I would bet that passion can be measured in Obamadollars.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Haha so I lied.

Just got this from the Obama campaign. It seemed applicable,

... We learned something extraordinary since I wrote to you last night.

We've crunched all the numbers and discovered that we are within striking distance of something historic: one million people donating to this campaign.

Think about that ... nearly one million people taking ownership of this movement, five dollars or twenty-five dollars at a time.

We're already more than 900,000 strong, including over half-a-million donating so far this year. This unprecedented foundation of support has built a campaign that has shaken the status quo and proven that ordinary people can compete in a political process too often dominated by special interests.

Unlike Senator Clinton or Senator McCain, we haven't taken a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. Our campaign is responsible to no one but the people.

One million donors would be a remarkable feat -- something that's never been done before in a presidential primary and something no one ever thought would be possible for us...

 

[chemisttree]

I give a dollar to every candidate every year! (they all split the dollar) Even the one's I don't like...

 

[Moonbear]

if you aren't willing to invest $20 in the election process then you really shouldn't vote;

Wow, I think that's a HORRIBLE idea! Let's bring back the poll taxes while we're at it...if you can't afford to buy your right to vote, you shouldn't vote? C'mon, I thought this country was about everyone having the right to vote, regardless of income!

 

[Evo]

Haha so I lied.

Just got this from the Obama campaign. It seemed applicable,

So, they're tyrying to fleece even more from the people that already gave? I guess the people that have already given are easy marks. Smart move on Obama's part get those that will give to give more.

I'm sure all campaigns operate the same way though, they're all after that almighty buck, so we shouldn't criticize Obama for doing it too.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Wow, I think that's a HORRIBLE idea! Let's bring back the poll taxes while we're at it...if you can't afford to buy your right to vote, you shouldn't vote? C'mon, I thought this country was about everyone having the right to vote, regardless of income!

Sure, and not everyone can afford the twenty dollars, but for most people this is nothing - esp a couple of times every four years. If someone doesn't place any real value on who wins, then they really aren't very interested in the country. It is where the talkers are separated from the doers.

It would be different if the previous system worked, but it has failed miserably. You aren't willing to spend twenty dollars to help enhance the democratic process and take power away from the elite?

 

[Moonbear]

Sure, and not everyone can afford the twenty dollars, but for most people this is nothing - esp a couple of times every four years. If someone doesn't place any real value on who wins, then they really aren't very interested in the country. It is where the talkers are separated from the doers.

It would be different if the previous system worked, but it has failed miserably. You aren't willing to spend twenty dollars to help enhance the democratic process and take power away from the elite?

I'm not willing to pay for ANY campaign, because I prefer to hear what their platforms are before I back anyone candidate. I'll make my final decision of who I'm backing on election day when I enter the polls. It worries me more that people are actually being persuaded by last minute advertising that these campaign donations are financing, and I want no part of that.

Sorry, but I don't think my vote should count any less just because I'm not going to line their already rich pockets with money I can find many better uses for. I've given to my share of charities this year, and rich politicians aren't one of them. If I heard of a candidate who wasn't independently wealthy and didn't stand a chance of campaigning without donations, but who had great ideas and seemed like they had leadership potential, then maybe I'd donate to help them stand such a chance. But when it's a competition of who is richest, forget it, they shouldn't have wasted the money they already got.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So, they're tyrying to fleece even more from the people that already gave? I guess the people that have already given are easy marks. Smart move on Obama's part get those that will give to give more.

I'm sure all campaigns operate the same way though, they're all after that almighty buck, so we shouldn't criticize Obama for doing it too.

Of course they come back. That's what politicians do when they find solid supporters; and I want them to! But if an occasional email asking for money is too much to tolerate, then again that speaks to one's true level of commitment to this country.

As BobG mentioned, the beauty of making small donations is where Hillary got into trouble: Much of her core maxed out long ago. Most Obama supporters like me have only given a fraction of what could be given.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not willing to pay for ANY campaign, because I prefer to hear what their platforms are before I back anyone candidate.

If you don't know who you support then clearly that makes sense. However, there are exceptions to this logic: I went out door to door collecting signatures for Perot because I wanted more choices. I didn't vote for Perot.

It worries me more that people are actually being persuaded by last minute advertising that these campaign donations are financing, and I want no part of that.

Nothing is changed except that the power is removed from the elites, PACs, and special interest groups.

Sorry, but I don't think my vote should count any less just because I'm not going to line their already rich pockets with money I can find many better uses for. I've given to my share of charities this year, and rich politicians aren't one of them. If I heard of a candidate who wasn't independently wealthy and didn't stand a chance of campaigning without donations, but who had great ideas and seemed like they had leadership potential, then maybe I'd donate to help them stand such a chance. But when it's a competition of who is richest, forget it, they shouldn't have wasted the money they already got.

Very few people in this country could finance an election campaign. What's more, by your logic only ultra-rich people could run for office. And it's not that your vote counts less; it is about having better choices to begin with. If not for the internet and small donations, Obama probably wouldn't even be in the running any longer.

Would you be willing to go out and campaign for a desired candidate?

 

[Moonbear]

What's more, by your logic only ultra-rich people could run for office.

Indeed, that's exactly who I see running for office. Have you ever seen a poor person run? If they did, I'd contribute just to give them a chance, since they couldn't appeal to their rich buddies to help them out.

And it's not that your vote counts less; it is about having better choices to begin with.

That's important early on. At this stage, most everyone has already dropped out because they didn't get enough votes at the polls, not because they didn't have enough funds. We haven't even had our primary election here, and there isn't much of a choice left. Those of us who live in states with late primaries might as well not bother even being part of the process, because all the states who vote before us already chose the candidates. The candidate I most wanted isn't even running anymore, but I wasn't even convinced enough by that candidate that he'd be THE one to donate to his campaign either.

Would you be willing to go out and campaign for a desired candidate?

If I actually thought one was good enough for that, sure, but in my voting lifetime, I have not yet seen a candidate I strongly enough supported to give that sort of commitment. I'd really like a do-over at this point so we could toss out all the current candidates and try again for someone better. And, if there were an independent candidate, I might help that one out, just for the sake of getting rid of the two-party system. Otherwise, let the two parties each decide how they'll fund the campaigns of their candidates.

 

[hypnagogue]

Voting isn't free of course. It costs you the cost of transportation to get to the voting booth and back, as well as the time you have to take out of your day to do it. Not to mention, in the broader sense, the opportunity cost of contributing your time and attention to the political process in general. Maybe a miniscule and worthy cost, true.

So when should you vote? When you want to contribute to your preferred candidate's victory and are willing to incur a miniscule cost to this end.

Given that these conditions are met, you should also contribute to your candidate financially. Financial contribution helps contribute to the candidate's victory. And you can choose to only donate a miniscule amount, however much that may be for your particular level of wealth. Hey, even if you're poor you can donate 50 cents right? No amount is too small to be worth writing off as unworthy of the effort of donation, or else you could just as well write off the vote itself as being unworthy of the effort. Just imagine how much money could be raised if millions of people donated 50 cents each. So it seems that voting but refusing to contribute any money to the preferred candidate is rather irrational.

 

[Mk]

Uhm, no, he never raised anywhere near the top, not even with the endorsement and contributions from the KKK. Although he's definitely no longer a contender.

It strikes me as strange to use an example of somebody who is voting for a candidate as evidence why you should not vote for a candidate. The people that are voting are of all races, creeds, and beliefs.

I see the structure as this:
KKK votes for Ron Paul
You do not agree with KKK
Therefore you should not vote for Ron Paul

When there competition is down to two, the guy down the street that ran over my mailbox twice might be voting for the same candidate as I intend. He is obviously has a moral stance I reject and I should change my vote to accommodate this logic.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Moreover, RP has stated that he doesn't care who gives him the money, he's going to use it the way he sees fit. So if you liked him before, the KKK endorsement (which to my knowledge was just 1 guy) shouldn't mean anything. I mean, if anything, he's taking their money, so they have less.