Irrelevant
Well-known member
I see that concern, but I don't see how allowing Bloomberg to buy an election is the direction we need to be heading. Or that right now you don't have to disclose where you're campaign money has to come from. There are legitimate reforms that can be made that will at least make it better. There isn't ever going to be a single solution to a complex problem.With dramatic reduction in campaign spending you will just vest more power in CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NY Times, and WSJ to set the agenda. The problem is not too much money running too many ads. The problem is that for the most part you aren't voting for a person to use personal discretion anymore, you are voting for a proxy to the relevant party block. People need to start voting for people who will vote with their local residents' interests, not some grand party platform. Until that is fixed, no "reform" will change the outcome. The one campaign limit I fully support is that you may only give funds to a candidate running for a seat that you can vote for. No Texas money flooding a South Dakota election to get another vote for the GOP or Dem party.