Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Yep, but it's not really eliminating your ability to participate in politics, it just means you take a more financially passive role. The problem with private donations is that it gives the better fundraiser a distinct advantage, whereas i believe that the candidate whose position is the most compelling to the most people should have an advantage.
|
If that is the role I wish to play, than yes, this idea eliminates my involvement. While some financial aspects of politics are not played above board, not all are. Eliminating them entirely, is kinda like cutting off your hand to spite your face. I could see a cap on donations, personal or corporate, but I see eliminating all of them as an infringement of my rights.
As far as the "distint advantage" part: you don't think leaving the dissemination of information to the media is a "distinct advantage" to the person(s) that is more attractive to the media?
Same analogy: California - did the best person win? Nope. The most popular person won, regardless of his/her idealogy. Remove the parties and you get a California situation with the media clamoring to the candidate that will give them the best ratings. Even if you jacked up the cost to participate, than only the people who can afford to participate will. It won't make the pool of choices any better.