143 Million things to think about....
 

How does everybody feel about Bush having a record $143million in campaign money? While everybody else is broke...Thoughts?

Shows why campaign finance is needed. Also shows us that someone better truly start looking into where these contributions are coming from.

Don't know, just doesn't seem very practical to me that a company going bankrupt and laying off thousands should be spending big bucks on a presidential campaign, unless of course they are planning on getting something in return. Which then goes against our supposed electoral system and the office where the people and not businesses are supposed to come first.

I think we need some serious campaign finance reform to happen

He will need every penny of it to stay competitive in the upcoming election.

And yes, we need serious reforms.
An election by the people.... We should have 300 dollar contribution limits. Not many people can afford to donate 2k.
We also need to stop the soft money as well. Elections shouldn't be determined by who can effectively afford to blanket the nation with campaign ads.

I feel the same about it as I feel about every other candidate for political office in the country needing to raise unbelievable amounts of cash for elections.

Reforms are needed across the board. Of course it won't happen because both major parties are too entrenched in the current system.

no, No, NO!

This is wrong on so many levels.

Not only does it infringe on the rights of the people (who do you think gives this money?), it also just shifts everything over to the press. Would you want the press core to be the only source of general information? If they don't cover it, its not known? A majority of the Republican money comes from individual donations, and you want to stifle that?

The only reform I want to see is a truth in advertising for political adds. You can't lie about a car but you can lie about yourself or your opponent.

Let everyone give money, just put a $300 limit for political contributions to any one individual for the year.

That allows americans to have their voice. It allows ALL americans to have an equal voice.

What $1000 is to much?

I know people who would say $300 is to much for them.

You are just lowering the totals, you change nothing.

Yes 1000 is too much for many middle class and lower, people.
Bring it down so that you need many people to contribute to you to get any kind of referrendum on your popularity and the publics want to see you elected.

Say what you will about Howard Dean, but the way he ran a campaign, and raised money is how every candidate should be forced to use exclusively. He was truly a people campaign. And it was successful. Lots of people giving 10 - 25 - 100 dollars only to him. Or giving small amounts of 10 or so on a recurring basis.
That's a people campaign.

You are going to get a kick out of this.
You see this was the amusing thing about campaign finance reform. I was NOT for it because of free speech reasons, but I knew it would help my party more. Ironic data isn't it. The party of the wealthy is paid for by the 'middle class' and the party of the 'people' is paid for by the wealthy.
I have changed my mind, I am ALL for your idea :D
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...0426-8917r.htm

P.S. Don't worry about Kerry, I'm sure a rich white male or two will come to his rescue once he has the nomination.

Yes, I am well aware of all that. And still I am in favor of campaign finance reform because it takes the special interests out of the democratic party and forces them to rely on us.

I am happy with this even though it gives us an immediate handicap, something I hope we can erase in several years time as the democrats adjust to asking for small contributions.

I am glad I have "turned" you, please stay for the ride.

I think bush has already been pain for his next round of appointments to office.Each dollar is a favor waiting to be given, not that the democrats wont have the same commitments. I guess the difference is the "level" of favors. I could be wrong but, I dont think any previous administration was this riddled with officials who bought there way into positions thru either financing or affiliation. Virtually every member of the cabinet, is a former buisiness partner, of affiliated with a contributor.
What ever happened to getting the most qualified individual for the job?

Ustwo- don't shoot facts across the bow without expecting them to come back and haunt you:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp

% from Donors of $2,000+
Bush - 65% Dean - 16%

No. of $2,000+ Contributors
Bush - 42,649 Dean - 2,657

% from Donors of $200 or less
Bush - 16% Dean - 58%

Superbelt's point was that Dean had done exactly what these numbers show- get the little guy involved at a cash level they could afford. Of course, he lost, so it's not a success story.

But he didn't fail from lack of fundraising.

Bush should save his campaign money.

Historically, by which I mean under the pre-McCain-Feingold fundraising environment, the Democratic party tended to rely on large donations from wealthy individuals. Both parties benefitted from the theoretically unlimited soft money donations that the system permitted.

Now, however, the key is hard money. The individual donation limit was raised from $1000 to $2000. Ads are more closely regulated, and candidates can no longer accept soft money. The approaches to operating in this fundraising system have varied.

Bush draws the lion's share of his cash from large donations. Perhaps you've heard that individuals who raise large amounts of money for the campaign are given special status as "rangers," or as "pioneers." They do this by having $2000 a plate dinners where a bunch of wealthy donors get together, see GWB, and write a check. Considerable networking skills are required to pull off these events, and they aren't limited to either party, though Bush has had greater success with them.

I take issue with the misleading statistics that Ustwo's article provided. First, the numbers are entirely from the old fundraising system. Second, they are aggregate numbers from a midterm election. They don't accurately reflect what is going on in fundraising under the new system or under this election. The editorial is really quite irrelevant to the question at hand: what about Bush's campaign war chest? What does that say about the system?

Clearly, when the public finance system does more harm than good to competitive candidates, something's going wrong. Fundraising is part of the modern campaign; I think it would be nice to move over to a system of complete public financing of presidential elections, but it would be a difficult and expensive program to administer. For better or for worse, contributing to a campaign is a fundamental democratic act, and I'm not sure that it should be removed from the system. We ought to do what we can to prevent any kind of quid pro quo, but that is also difficult to do. As I noted, an individual can only contribute two grand. Or can they? I might organize a fundraiser that diverts $150,000 to a campaign. Would I expect something in return?

Last note: the democratic candidates have together raised nearly as much money as Bush has. They've spent more of it, but it's only the primary. Should Kerry, who opted out of public finance, win the nomination, I expect that he will be able to compete with Bush head-on in the money department. Like Trippi always said: 2 million donors, $100 each. The internet is how you do it.