|reply to pnh102 |
said by pnh102:True, they could take the high road and refuse the contribution. But in the current political climate money wins elections. The more money you have the more airtime, advertising and exposure you get, the more likely you are to win the race.
Why rag on AT&T or any other company that pays protection money to Congress? Elected officials, if they really wanted to, could solve this problem by not accepting such bribes.
It's partially the public's fault. Apathy is at an all time high. No one bothers actually researching a candidate's positions, his voting record. All we hear (if anything) is his campaign slogan on radio and TV. When we get to the polls it's usually a game of name recognition (either the candidate's or their party's). We are suckers for a candidate's "brand", his public persona created by his P.R. handlers, but rarely take the time to explore what he has done in the past.
I say ban all campaign contributions (money, trips, services). Each candidate would receive a set amount of money for a given race from the branch of government the election is for (mayor is paid for by the city, governer by the state, etc...). Keep everyone on an equal footing from a financial standpoint and let there ideas (or, more likely, rhetoric) speak for themselves.