"Do You Know Who Pays For Your Vote? You Do."
By Capt. Fred Davis
Published: Saturday, January 14, 2012

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.




Return to Home Page of Tipsforboating.com


Copyright © Fred Davis. All rights reserved.