I have problem with these rich people stoking their campaigns with their own money. It makes me sick. It is an unfair advantage over “regular” folk. Bloomberg did it. Hillary did it. Now, Carly is doing it. This isn’t right.
From TPM:
Carly Fiorina’s $2.5 million loan to her U.S. Senate campaign has given the former Hewlett-Packard CEO a considerable financial edge over her Republican rivals.
In all, Fiorina’s campaign had $2.75 million in the bank to begin the year, according to a federal disclosure report delivered Friday. She is one of three Republicans vying for the right to challenge California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is seeking a fourth term. (more…)
They all buy their seats, one way or another. I wonder if a self bought person will be any less influenced by special interests?
An article in paper yesterday talked about how Chuck Schumer is spreading money around to help him get Harry Reid’s job. No outrage, no question, just business as usual.
Ok, so how ‘rich’ is ‘too rich’ to be able to use one’s own money?
If you have $100,000 are you ‘too rich’?
$100,001 ?
$100,002 ?
$100,003 ?
Just keep adding a dollar, until you get to the magic figure of ‘too rich’ and then please explain why this person is ‘too rich’ to be allowed to spend their own money (but a person with $1 less isn’t).
I’m really interested in learning PRECISELY how ‘rich’ is ‘too rich’ from someone who has a real answer to the question.
Joe – If you note in my post, I don’t have an answer. I think that my point was that the rich are dominating our politics. A regular guy/gal can’t participate because that can’t afford it. (Palin is the exception and not the rule) This is just another example of how money is dominating our politics. It is no wonder that we aren’t getting the results that we want. If the whole process is turned over to rich people how does any else get heard?
Gregory – what article? in what paper?
OK, so tell me who is ‘rich’ and who is ‘a regular person’?
Where EXACTLY is the line crossed where one is so dangerous by spending their own money?
You don’t want corporate influence (money) going into political campaigns. Ok
But now you seem to be saying that the CANDIDATE HIMSELF should not influence HIS OWN campaign. Isn’t that rather an extreme view?
At least do us the favor of identifying who you consider to be ‘the enemy’.
Who are ‘the rich’? EXACTLY how much money does one have to have to be a danger to society?
You are focusing on how to define rich when that is not the issue. I think that everyone would agree that Bloomberg, Hillary and iCarly are rich. The question is do rich people have an unfair advantage over the average Joe (median income in the US is about $44,000) if they are allowed to finance their own elections? Yes or No? Second question – Is there anything that we can do about this or is it simply a fact of life? (now, you can say that we can’t define this or that.)
“You are focusing on how to define rich when that is not the issue”
Of course it is.
If you want a law saying ‘rich people cannot contribute money to their own campaign’ , then you need to define who it is you are talking about.
Otherwise, you’ll get a law saying ‘NO candidate can contribute money to HIS OWN campaign’. Is that what you really want?
I just hope she buys lots of signs and printed material. This way it will help boost the economy for the printers and people who make the stuff. Instead of tv commercials.
Don’t forget Obama, the biggest fundraiser in the history of American elections.
Very few “wealthy” candidates, commiting their own resources could compete with the $700 milion or so raised by Obama. Eighty percent of his donors were corporations and lobbyists, not small time donors under $100. The small donor meme was one of the most duplicitous of any campaign.
Obama started the deluge of corporations by failing to live up to his campaign promise to accept public funding as his basic campaign financial support. He lied. Now we have a president who owes everything to his donors. Is it any surprise that he represents the status quo?
The only solution to the well funded or wealthy candidate are laws requiring that all candidates be publically funded.
Public funding?
oh yeah great idea
Give incumbents the key to the treasury to fund their own re-election efforts.
NOT
Joe –
I always love how you can’t see any benefit of the public doing squat. Why can’t public funding be set up in such a way that the incumbents don’t have an opportunity to stick their hands in the cookie jar?
Just call me more than a bit skeptical.
Since Congress would obviously write the rules for this, tell us how you would prevent them from writing them to benefit themselves.