It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by Amaterasu
posted by donwhite
Each party will spend $500 million or more between 2006 and the 2008 election . . the Supreme Court says we the people cannot control or regulate our own elections . . The Buckley case . . It is irrational to say the public - through Congress - cannot write reasonable laws on the amount of money to be spent in elections . .
I think there should be equity in campaign spending. Maybe have a fixed maximum, or have all money equally doled out to ballot qualifiers from a volunteer fund . . Require all media outlets to allot equal time as part of a corporate civic duty . . Regardless, the way it is now is not in our best interest. [Edited by Don W]
Originally posted by donwhite
posted by yeahright
Self-fulfilling prophecy? People don't vote for a 3rd party because they don't do well, and they don't do well because people don't vote for them.
I have no illusion about a 3rd party candidate actually winning, but IF sufficient people were to vote that way, that in and of itself could make for some significant change. My point is we cannot continue to do what we've always done and have any reasonable belief that the results will be different. I'm familiar with the Socialist Party. Eugene Debs a Hoosier from Terre Haute ran 4 times once from prison in the early part of the 20th century. At this point, I'd classify myself as a Libertarian. I don't think we necessarily have to win, but putting a dent in the numbers would get their attention. No, it isn't a quick fix . . [Edited by Don W]
Well, I agree with your goals, but reflect back on the 1992 campaign. That was the only time a 3rd party candidate got equal billing in the presidential debates. As you know, that platform has been surrendered to control of the 2 major parties by the League of Women Voters - forcibly - so now, there will only be 2 in the debates. For sure. Unless Bill Gates or Warren Buffet decide to make a run, it’s going to be Hobson’s choice. I happen to prefer the Dems grafters over the GOP grafters. As a matter of principle.
Originally posted by donwhite
We had that once. I forget when the “check-off” for donations to the Presidential Election Fund was introduced. I’d guess in the 1970s under Nixon. Unfortunately, the choice to employ the IRS Form 1040s as the best way to get to the whole public, caused many people to think the check-off had something to do with their taxes. It did not and never has.
In 2004, I believe each of the 2 major parties got about $75 million. Both parties opted out of money and controls for their respective primaries. But since the 501(c)(3)’s and then 2004;s 527s, five times as much money is spent as the original Presidential Financing Law envisioned. Neither side is taking that money for the 2008 campaign, so that attempt to control and equalize the elections is over.
Originally posted by Revelmonk
Ever since George Bush won the second election I have been an Independant and really wanted Ralph Nader to win, because he really seemed the least alligned to what I like to call the political mafia(dems, republicans). Yet, because image is made to be everything in mainstream media and he himself was apart of the independant party...his ship was sunk as soon as he decided to run for president.