Another week of baloney! Just ask Newt. If you watched the
same debate I did, you probably heard Mr. Gingrich say to Mr.
Romney, “Cut the bull.” I fail to comprehend all
the fuss over the individual state primaries or caucuses.
Political
debates seem to offer a platform for candidates to name call
their opponents and make fools out of themselves.
Candidates with the most money or “friends” with
money spread it around prior to the debates which precede
primaries. Large sums are spent by candidates in an effort
to convince
those casting ballots that they are the most deserving of
support.
If I were extremely interested in what candidates spend to
prove how deserving they are of my vote, I would simply tally
up the dollars spent to buy it. The biggest spenders would
then go to the bottom of my list. An exception would be made
if funds raised were contributed to major charities in the
name of the candidate.
In
pursuit of votes, candidates appear at “fundraising” dinners
held to seek financial support. Rules accompany all actions
of each candidate, but for each rule noted in campaign financing
law, there are “exceptions.” Most skilled campaigners
know well how to exploit the “exceptions.” “Restore
Our Future” is the political action “super PAC” backing
Mitt Romney’s campaign that Newt keeps digging him about.
There are no limits to the amount that can be spent by these “political
action committees.”
As I see it, the candidate with the wealthiest friends may
be able to BUY THE MOST VOTES but will that not make that candidate
the one with the most IOUs?
There
should be REAL limits set on how much can be spent by anyone
seeking public office. If someone exceeds
the
limit, those excess funds should have to be forwarded
to a worthy
charity that supports the needy or an organization
that will spend the money developing job creation.
Let’s remember,
needy and unemployed folks still have the right to vote. They
may be more inclined to support candidates that appear to have
concerns for the “less affluent.”
Dollar
amounts that are announced on TV relating to how much candidates
have spent — (just on primary vote gathering) — could
be enough to feed the hungry in our country for sometime. Figures
like $13 million are thrown around like the amounts are small
change. A review of the brochure entitled, “Public Funding
of Presidential Elections,” will acquaint
you with the real reason so many candidates are
lined
up to seek
votes.
For all those in our country who are unemployed, I suggest
you become a candidate for public office because the pay is
HUGE!
The best part: We all fund that kitty by checking off the $3
amount on our tax returns.
It’s
time for another over-haul of the system that funds the political
campaigns.
Real, enforceable
limits
need to be
set for how much any one person seeking election,
no matter how much of his own fortune he
wishes to throw
in, can
spend. Just a few weeks ago, there was a
media exposure regarding
how filthy rich many of our Congressional
representatives are.
One Washington politician had a net worth of $6 to $190 million,
a fact that leaves room for questions regarding the validity
of the tally.
It has been public knowledge that many Congressional representatives
(and their staffs) are privy to financial moves in the market.
If I recall, Martha Stewart got an all-expense paid vacation
for using such knowledge. So how does a politician get so rich?
(I suggest it begins by running for office).
I
believe voters will take notice to — and give their
support to — a candidate with
a real plan to:
1. Jump start the economy.
2. Increase the job market.
3. Provide low income housing (for the millions who lost their
homes).
The plan must be clearly outlined, feasible and probable to
be put into place. The electorate, in our age of social media,
has all the power to scrutinize any proposal made by candidates.