Does Money Make It Right?

OneMann,

Maybe there will be enough naysayers out there to collect enough money to run a campaign. Just a thought. Take names and phone numbers.

By the way, you do me a disservice by not including the fact that I agreed with you, philosophically, but not in reality.

That's called spin.

I pose a question as to whether or not the search for campaign money has affected democracy, especially here at home.  And your answer, Key2life, is for me to raise money?  I don't even understand your reference to naysayers.

It doesn't take any kind of spin, real or imagined, to figure out where you stand on this issue - that it's OK if ideology and the rightness or wrongness of a issue is determined by the ability to raise the most money.

You may go merrily along with the attitude that it's just the way the game is played.  We all get that.  But the question is, what does it say about local politics?  Let's try to stay on topic.

OneMann,

You throw me under the bus and then ask a philosophical question: What does it say about local politics?

It says: If you haven't made 50 calls today to raise money for your campaign, you're way behind the 8-ball.

If you don't make 50 calls tomorrow to raise money for your campaign, you're way behind the 8-ball.

If you don't make 50 calls everyday until you have a campaign warchest...you're way behind the 8-ball.

That's what it says.

I don't know specifics, but in the 2006 election for the St. Johns Co. Commission, the answer to this question was NO.  The 2 (or 3) incumbents that were super financed by business and developers (according to the Fla TU) were run out on a rail but newbies who were strongly supported by the grass roots.  The incumbents had 6 figure campaign chests, as opposed to the 5 figure chests of the newbies.  As I understand it, this was primarily a revolt of sorts against what was perceived as a BCC that was too lenient with developers (sounds familiar).

To win an election, you must have name recognition.  Period.  If the voters don't know the name, they will not vote for it.  Name recognition requires advertising, which requires money.  There's the rub, at least to me.  It is disgusting that money can buy an election.  It seems almost un-American in some ways, but maybe it is oh-so-American.  I hate it.  I wish there were some other way, but how?  Ban any form of campaign spending?  Not likely.  And trying to limit donations causes donors to look for loopholes.  One of the ugliest parts of our political process.  If I ever wanted to run, I would do all I could to be self-financed.

Not an answer, just my opinion.

Has democracy been affected by campaign financing? Yes. It has.

If OneMann wants to raise money through a non-fundraising mechanism, he's going to have to capture all of the naysayer money he can.

Because that's what he believes.

So, do you still want to have coffee, OneMann?

Of course, campaign financing has affected democracy, but (again) the question I asked was what is says about the electoral system.

Key2life, you say I did you a disservice by not mentioning that you agree with me "philosophically, but not in reality."  Then why do you constantly recommend what you're philosophically against, instead of acting on your philosophy?  Is that not hypocritical?  If I threw you under a bus, it is a bus made of your words.

I am not raising money, so I don't need to contact any naysayers.  What are they saying "nay" to, anyway?

Coffee?  Sure.  As long as it ain't bitter.

Oneman, to answer your Question's; Has the American electoral system been reduced to merely who raises the most money, and if so, what does that say about local politics”? The answer to the first part of your Question is yes. The political arena has been reduced to who has the most in their war chest, and it is truly unfortunate to have too depend on the dollar to win an election.

Baxley hit the nail on the head when he said name recognition, but he did not mention the second reason. An election is about two items, as Baxley stated; name recognition, and Two, being able to express your point of view. And in order to achieve those goals; one must be able to put those two items in front of the people. And how do we do that? We gather as many donations as possible, build a war chest, use our own money, and advertise, advertise, advertise.  

The second part of your question, “and if so, what does that say about local politics”? That’s an easy one. It say’s that the politician with the biggest war chest will most likely win the election, sad but true. And as Baxley states; “there’s the rub”.  Baxley you say, “It seems almost un-American in some ways, but maybe it is oh-so-American.  I hate it.  I wish there were some other way, but how? 

 Here is my opinion on how too change it. With today’s technology there is absolutely no reason that anyone running for any office should have to pay to make the two points that I stated above. An election benefits any and every American involved in that particular election, whether national, or local. So ask yourselves; what is a politician? The answer; they are a public servants.  Yes that is right; they serve you and me. So! Here is what we do, send a bill to the legislators that would require all elections to be broadcast as a public service announcement. Give the politician an equal X amount of time to make the two points mentioned above. For a more in-depth announcement on the positions, and views send the people too a web page.

All the media outlets should be involved. If need be give the media outlets and incentive in the form of a tax break. The more time given to the election the bigger the tax break for that media outlet. Sounds to simple, it may be, but it would work! It would place anyone that wanted to run for office on an even playing field. If adopted even a poor man like me could run for office.

  It take an unsatisfied person to make things satisfactory! Winn1955

Ps: Take note on how I made reference to the questions. I copied and pasted onemans, and Baxley’s questions too my answers used italics, and bold. This makes it easier to follow a thread in any blog. As R.K. would say, just another tip from Winn1955         

Fellow Bloggers,

I'm answering on Baxley's comment, but this is not directed towards him.  It is directed to all who have, or will comment on this subject.  First, let me say that the subject is definitely worthy of discussion and the comments listed have been quite good.  But if you will allow, let me put this in another perspective.  One that is very basic, but has been ignored to this point.  If it sounds a bit esoteric, so be it.  But on closer inspection, it is quite applicable.

All of you have been concentrating on money being the means to the ends.  And you all are absolutely correct.  The only problem I can see is that you have been looking at the problem from a rather narrow perspective.  My answer, watch the animal planet.  The Discovery chanel or even the History chanel.

Yeah, yeah.  I know what's going through your minds.  Are you daft, uncle Rich?  Has the heat finally been victorious over your pea-brain?  No.. I only offer another perspective, one you haven't thought about.  It might take a bit, but please indulge me.

You are thinking of money in a very narrow conceptualisied perspective.  Now think about it as a commodity one has in order for the chance to obtain something one either needs, and/or wants.  In this particular case, it is political position.  Civic duty, the public good, status or power.  It really doesn't matter.

Now think of it in these terms.  Every living organism on this planet has the ability to judge wheather its efforts are capable of gaining something else.  It's hard wired into their internal systems & we are no different.  Food for sustenance.  Status.  Power.  The right to procreate and further its own genes.  The big question is, am I going to expend more of my commodity than I am going to receive benefits in return?  Even the lions in Africa, the so called super predetors, are only successful 20% of the time that they hunt.  But there is always some other entity out there who has a bit more commodity to expend & thus, has a slightly better chance to succeed.

Same thing with any person who wishes to run for public office.  There are some who have X amount of commodity, ie., money to spend.  There are others who might have more, some who have less.  They weigh the cost to benefit analysis to determine whether it is worth the effort.  The one who has the most commodity will, in all probability, succeed, all things being equal.  And in situations like this, that term is very important.

Is this the be all, end all explanation to the problem?  Heck no.  If you think it is, you're smoking better stuff than I am.  No, it's just another view you may, or may not have thought of.  But that's just one of the reasons I am here.  When you look at a problem in just one way, if you give me half a chance, I'll turn you around, either 90 or 180 degrees to show you another side of the picture.  Just another tip from uncle Rich.

RichK

Uncle Rich, Please come in out of the heat it is affecting your logic. Commodity; in here lies the problem. Them who have and them who don’t. Your theory eliminates a lot of very intelligent people. .  “They weigh the cost to benefit analysis to determine whether it is worth the effort.  The one who has the most commodities will, in all probability, succeed. Intelligent’s is not based solely on education. I have personally known many so called well educated people that were still dumber than a box of rocks. And on the other hand I know many very intelligent people that only had an eighth education that have done well for them selves.  Now before you start saying hey wait a minute I wasn’t talking about intelligence. I am aware of that.

I said that to say this. Just because you have formal education it doesn’t make you smart, But as a usual rule your diploma will earn you more commodities though your life time.  This is were we are today, i.e. George Bush. In my response to onemans question I outlined a plan that would eliminate the ones with the most commodities; who would be the ones that would most likely win the election. I mean look at the early politicians in this country, were they all wealthy, and if they were did they need large sums of money to run for office.

When was the last time that you saw a man with average means run for anything, I mean the blue collar worker? Today people are of the opinion that if you are not an attorney. Or hold a degree of some kind you are not qualified for the position. And that is what I mean by eliminating many common folk that live in reality of life. You know the ones who know how it is that when your cost of living goes up you sacrifice one of your pleasures in life. You know the ones that know when their cost of living from tax increases you can’t go to your boss and demand more income.

Those are the ones who get eliminated from the political arena, the ones who know what life is really about, are the one who don’t get to make the decisions. Unfortunately it is left up to the one’s who will pay $400 for a hair cut, or the ones who live in the multi million dollar mansions. And the only thing the ones who live in reality get to do is vote for the best of the idiots who have lost touch with reality. 

It takes an unsatisfied person to make things satisfactory: Winn1955 

RichK - thanks for the view from the other side.  Interesting thoughts.  I never thought of mass marketing as evolution, but the basic premise is dead on.  Everything, ameoba to brain surgeon, is always looking out for its own best interest.  What motivates people to run for office is another blog, but no doubt money is a powerful tool in making the run.

Pat McGovern used to say about this issue, "They don't count dollar bills on election day, they count votes."  He was encouraging people to use their free word of mouth to persuade people to vote, and not be so consumed with collecting money to advertise.

It'll be interesting to hear what you have to say about fundraising after you run. I suspect you'll have a totally different perspective on this topic.

The same would be true of any of us.

Bloggers, thank you for your contributions.  You have each, indeed, brought new perspectives for me, and anyone who's just reading, if there are any, to consider.

Churchill did say we had the worst system of government, except for all the others.

Rich, an enjoyable trip from nature to electoral process.  You're a political Darwinist.

Winn, using money as the commodity does eliminate the blue collar men and women or the many other non-professionals from engaging actively in the political process as a candidate.

Bax, please begin another blog about what motivates someone to run for office.  It is a subject I'm struggling with on a personal level.

Each have spawned thoughts that I hope will result in blogs unto themselves.

I would certainly hope so, Key.  If I didn't, I have to be pretty dense.  I expect to have 15 months of different perspective to consider all life that I choose to consider at that time.

OneMann,

Fundraising is not just about "special interests" buying influence, it is about folks having trust in your abilities and being supportive of your seeking of public service. It is the ultimate commitment of support when someone reaches in their wallet.....

Winn,

Sorry to dissapoint you, but nowhere did I equate the amount of money one has to intelligence.  I made a rather simple observation, not even original.  It has been shown many time before. 

As for implying that there is a connection between a formal education and intelligence, I would direct you to my reply to Marsha above.

As far as the "Average" man goes, I guess it would depend on how one defines & perceives, "average."  The most obvious reason for me is that the average man does not have the financial independence to run.  I'm not implying any moral connotation here, just the obvious.

As to the $400. haircut, my attitude has always been that if a person comes abut his or her money in a legal manner, even inherited money, it's none of my business at all what he or she does with it.  As long as it's legal.  Someone wants to pay that kind of money for a haircut, who am I to say no? 

RichK 

Richk No disappointment here; I was way off base; I did not pick up on the perception of your reply. I was too busy rambling on about my own perspective on the situation to grasp the hypothesis that you were trying too approach. You know me by now R.K. I can become relatively thick headed, with tunnel vision. Bad Combo, but I will work on it.

After rereading your comment I have no choice but to be in agreement with the presupposition that you have recited. The survival of the fittest shall always prevail, for lack of better work, just human nature.

             Now on the other hand; I have to say that I fail to see why running an election as a public service announcement would not work. I think it could solve many of the problems related to campaign financing. It would certainly stop the politicians from feeling obligated to the many who finance their campaign. It would most certainly level the playing field so all citizens could run for office if they choose too. I am sure that there would be obstacles to overcome, but the premise and core of the foundation sounds feasible to me. What say you; fellow blogers?

 It takes an unsatisfied person to make things satisfactory:  Winn1955       

Winn,

No apologies necessary.  *(NAN)  Sorry there was some confusion.  Can't comment on the tunnel vision, but if you think that you are the lone member of the thick headed club, you are indeed thick headed.  Join the club.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "running an election as a public service announcement."  Could you clarify?

RichK

Winn - I think I understand the general idea: equal, publicly funded, time for all candidates to level the playing field.  All candidates?  What if there were 30 or 40?  Who would decide who gets to play?

I like the general idea, but wonder about the implementation.  Me saying it is improbable flies in the face of "It takes an unsatisfied person . . . "  There always seems to be some sort of campaign reform under way in Congress.  Why don't we ever see any changes?  Or did I miss something?

Not an apology R.K. Just an assertion of the facts; off base meaning, I wasn’t even close too the subject of discussion. The confusion was mine. Tunnel vision: One that sees things straight ahead with no peripheral vision. Kind of like a horse with blinders on.

My mind set on one topic with out regard to the subject matter. R.k If it were a battle of the thick heads we would be running neck and neck. (Pun intended)

 Ok, running an election as a public service announcement. Go back up the thread line and read Oneman, to answer your Question's; by me. I was referring to the questions that one man asks, and was also answering Baxley’s question as too how we would change it. The same principal could be utilized with getting the Schools more of the lotto money that goes up in smoke from the cost of administration

It takes an unsatisfied person to make things satisfactory: Winn1955

Baxley you are the first too grasp the concept I have been trying to make. Who would decide who would get to play is a very good question. Of course with any new idea there are bugs to be worked out. I don’t believe they would be insuperable. The first Idea that comes to mind would be the same way the state decides who gets to go gator hunting. Use the lottery system to decide who gets to run. Establish a reasonable application fee for the lottery, and use those fees to supplement a publicly run campaign fund for the twenty four that is picked. Choose twelve from each party. And use the media to get the word out about each candidate. I am sure we would have to figure away to weed out the Idiots, you know like the one that crawled out of the wood work when California was looking for a governor, just some food for thought.

 About the campaign reform you are right on that one. That boils down too the root of the problem. It’s all about George Washington, NOT The President; but the Dollar.           

It takes an unsatisfied person to make things satisfactory: Winn1955

Money and Politics   By FTDOAAWM - Sun, 08/12/2007 - 12:36pm

In a perfect world an elected official would serve the public for one or two terms and then step back and let a new voice and ideas take over. I have lived in northeast Florida since the early eighties, and this has only happened once that I can think of. It was Congresswoman Tillie Fowler, but she kept her word and stepped down as promised.
In an other post on this site people are having a big discussion that it takes a big name, big money, or both to get elected. Not really true, as someone has already pointed out in St. Johns County last election big money and name recognition did not help. People were fed up with development and elected two commissioners that promised to stop or at least slow down development. It was also suggested that only a certain number or “qualified” people be allowed to run. May I ask who gets to pick who is qualified and how many. No thanks this is America anyone that wants to run and meets all qualifications should be allowed to run. Plus it was also said a fund be set up and each candidate be given an equal amount from the fund and that is all the money they can spend on their election, or at least that is how I interrupted the post. Where does the money for this “fund” come from? Let me guess TAX money, no thank you. The sad fact is it takes money to get elected. If you do not like where a candidate gets his money from, run for office yourself, or find someone you can support and go door to door for him or her and collect money, hold bake sales, yard sales, car washes, whatever it takes (but don’t stand on street corners or in traffic earn the money don’t beg it) to get your person elected. On election day offer to drive people to the poles to vote, and that is the biggest problem people do not vote.
Clay County is changing , I got here in the early eighties and it was the good ol boy program type of government. To some it may still seem that way, but it has gotten better. Maybe if we had better access to our government, like county meetings after 6:00P.M. so working people could attend. There is no law that says they have to meet in the afternoon, and if they say they can not complete their business in one night is there a law that says they can not meet twice as often? I do believe the money they are being paid is more than the average of a full time worker in Clay County. How about it Chairman Rutledge do you really serve the people the people of Clay County?

Food For thought Baxley

Food for thought BaxleyBaxley you are the first too grasp the concept I have been trying to make. Who would decide who would get to play is a very good question. Of course with any new idea there are bugs to be worked out. I don’t believe they would be insuperable. The first Idea that comes to mind would be the same way the state decides who gets to go gator hunting. Use the lottery system to decide who gets to run. Establish a reasonable application fee for the lottery, and use those fees to supplement a publicly run campaign fund for the twenty four that is picked. Choose twelve from each party. And use the media to get the word out about each candidate. I am sure we would have to figure away to weed out the Idiots, you know like the one that crawled out of the wood work when California was looking for a governor, just some food for thought. About the campaign reform you are right on that one. That boils down too the root of the problem. It’s all about George Washington, NOT The President; but the Dollar.          

 It takes an unsatisfied person to make things satisfactory: Winn1955

Not an apology R.K. Just an assertion of the facts; off base meaning, I wasn’t even close too the subject of discussion. The confusion was mine. Tunnel vision: One that sees things straight ahead with no peripheral vision. Kind of like a horse with blinders on. My mind set on one topic with out regard to the subject matter. R.k If it were a battle of the thick heads we would be running neck and neck. (Pun intended) Ok, running an election as a public service announcement. Go back up the thread line and read Oneman, to answer your Question's; by me. I was referring to the questions that one man asks, and was also answering Baxley’s question as too how we would change it. The same principal could be utilized with getting the Schools more of the lotto money that goes up in smoke from the cost of administration

 It takes an unsatisfied person to make things satisfactory: Winn1955

The more I think about it, the more I like it.  I'm not sure how the federal matching dollars thing works for national elections, but there is already public money used to help people campaign.  Why not take the program a few steps further and figure out how to publically fund all campaigns, and make any private contributions illegal?  It probably will never happen, but think about the money corporations would save.  I think it's funny how many big companies contribute to both candidates in a race just to cover their bases. 

Think about the purity of a public funded election.  No one would be able to cry "special interest" anymore. Boo-hoo.  I haven't thought about this in detail, but maybe it would be just insanely expensive for taxpayers.

Rich - got any ideas on this?  How is it handled in your future home, Canada? (Just kidding.)