Which democrats honestly have the best shot at winning?

what exactly did the mccain finegold bill even achieve if PACs are still playing such a huge role in campaign contributions?

A wild guess.
Exactly? Nada.

It took a huge bite out of free speech.

that "free speech" has gotten awfully expensive

John Kerry answered a question put to him by Rolling Stone Magazine about why he supported the president in the Iraq war early on -- and he answered sorta like this:

Because I didn't think he would **** things up as much as he did.


In my opinion, he helped his chances at getting the nomination and winning with that candor.

If I am willing to pay millions to have my point of view heard, does that somehow justify stripping me of my right to have it heard?

um well using the analogy of two men speaking to a crowd and one has a louder voice, why not offer both men a microphone so they can be heard equally? or are you saying the rich deserve more freedom of speech because they can afford it?

Well, let's modify the analogy slightly and see if you find yourself on the same side of the argument... suppose the men are able to speak equally loud, but one is twice as good at making an argument for his position as is the other. Would you advocate implementing some remedy to make their arguments equally persuasive?

nope, I just perfer the idea that they should be heard equally.

Well, the Constitution guarantees us a right to speak, not a right to be heard. (This, I think, is the point.) There are all kinds of advantages one person might have over another. In the end, people will put there money behind the ideas they want put forth; that's the nature of the system, and it seems to me that a lot of the complaints about "money" in elections at their core are complaints that the ideas the complainant would like to see getting the greatest backing simply don't in a free and unfettered environment.

Set the clock back 175 years and if you and I were running for the same position and you had a mule to get around to visit folks and I had no mule, some might argue that your wealth gave you an unfair advantage. If I favored some legislation that was beneficial to the local mule breeder, he might lend me a new mule every day, leading you to argue that the mule dealer had too much influence in the process. But what do we do? Make you leave your mule at home? Have the government provide us each a mule? Tell the mule dealer he can't act in his own best political interests despite the Constitutional guarantee that he be free to do so?

And so it goes...

Scrat's arguments on this issue are pretty good, Dys, and damn humorous.

I think this might be a good time to declare victory and abandon your fight!!! :wink: :wink: :wink:

well, if the consensus is that he with the most mules wins the election then I guess i have to concede. But it does kinda leave us with more mules in the white house and fewer to work the farm.

frankly, i would much rather see hard working mules in the white house over the fat lazy elephants that currently run around in it.

Mules and Asses
Seems that are plenty of asses.

Of course, it will never be done but all campaign finances should be dis-allowed, period. The Govt. should sponsor public financing and equal time on all media for free. Then it gets to which candidates would be granted these.The more half-way measures that are introduced, the more clever people get around them.

we see enough of the candidates without advertising and we all know that the ads are misleading and dirty anyway. so let's just ban advertising altogether. no advertising on tv, radio, newspaper, magazine, flyers, billboards, signs, mail, email, im, or internet popup. none.

Fantasies
OK Ban all ads. Most suck anyway. More debates and longer time allowed.

Thanks, Frank. It's pretty easy to illustrate why this is such a difficult subject, the harder part is knowing what to do about it. While I can't get past the feeling that sometimes the money messes things up a bit, I suspect that I feel that way when the groups having the most influence are groups I think shouldn't, you know? In the end, I have to come down on the side of leaving the process as free and unfettered as possible. In the end, I'd rather have the wrong guys win because we have too much freedom, than have the wrong guys win because we have too little.

intersting poll

I think GW is so cute

pssssst - Where's Tartarin?