Mike Angwin wrote in a message to Keith Knapp:
 MA>      The purchase of political office, and the ability to by 
 MA> legitimacy as a candidate permiates every level of government.  
 MA> Even at the local level.  Serious, qualified, and potentially 
 MA> popular candidates, without an ability to combat the financial 
 MA> power of even less qualified individuals, are lost to the 
 MA> positical process.
 MA>      Here in Houston, for example, in the mayors race recently 
 MA> concluded.  Of a field of eight, where six were distinguished 
 MA> individuals, the two that emerged for the eventual runoff were 
 MA> those that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, a sum far 
 MA> beyond the capacity of the others and far beyond what could 
 MA> ever be hoped to be rasied from supporters in a local election.
 MA>      As a result, Houstonians chose between the wealthy son of 
 MA> a Texas oil man backed by a national party, and a former member 
 MA> of the Clinton administration also backed by a national party.  
 MA> In our supposedly non-partisan mayoral race, funding for these 
 MA> two came from all over the United States with a former 
 MA> president and the sitting vice-president of the United States 
 MA> entering the local fray promoting their favorites.
 MA>      The other candidates, local citizens who have lived in 
 MA> Houston all their lives rather than just the time required to 
 MA> run for mayor, were swamped by the outside money and outside 
 MA> influence brought to bear. One, a fiscally conservative former 
 MA> city controller, who had reined in the lavish spending of the 
 MA> former mayor, another, an attorney and former city council 
 MA> woman who had decades of experience as an advocate for 
 MA> minorities and as a community activist, and another, a woman 
 MA> who has long been a leader in local conservative causes, were 
 MA> all crushed under the money tree.  Their voices all but 
 MA> silenced.
A disgusting situation,  and one that probably accounts for much of my 
distaste for politics,  but it also sounds like it'd be descriptive to say 
that this is all too typical.
 MA>      While I am not a person who normally desires government 
 MA> intervention or the creation of new laws that inevitably 
 MA> restrict our freedoms in one way or another, I do beleive 
 MA> something needs to be done about the electoral process at all 
 MA> levels of government. 
While I agree that something needs to be done,  why turn to the government to 
solve the problem?  Methinks that in large part they _ARE_ the problem.  And, 
it's not _our_ freedoms that would be getting restricted,  only those who are 
seeking office.
 MA> There is simply too much money at play and it affects, at every 
 MA> level, how we are governed in a negative way, detracting from 
 MA> the will and the ability of the elector to make a reasoned 
 MA> choice at the polls.
Yep.  No doubt in my mind that there's a lot of truth to this.  So instead of 
adding yet more government,  a solution that in my view _never_ works the way 
it was intended,  why not remove much of that money from their influence?  It 
would seem to me that less money under government control,  and less powers 
under their influence as well,  is something that'd be good for _all_ of us, 
and for the country as a whole.
 MA> Maybe we don't need committees or commissions to regulate how 
 MA> much can be donated by who, or what consitutes a donation, but, 
 MA> instead, take a simpler approach.  Possibly we should simply 
 MA> restrict donations to those eligible to vote in a given race 
 MA> and only allow a single donation to a single candidate in any 
 MA> given race.
I've said this elsewhere in other contexts,  but it applies here as well -- 
it matters not what set of rules you come up with,  somebody is going to find 
the loopholes,  find a way around them,  and find a way to use them in 
perversion of the original intent.
 MA>      Unions, of course, do not vote, neither to corporations, 
 MA> nor do civic organization, committees or even politcal parties.
Yup!
 MA>  People of influence who are ineligible to vote in a given 
 MA> district ought not be allowed to cast a vote by making 
 MA> financial contributions.
And still,  if one of those people is,  say,  your employer the influence is 
still there.
 MA>      I would suggest we allow, in any given area, individuals 
 MA> to donate whatever they wish to the person they are eligible to 
 MA> vote for, but not outsiders.  When it gets to the point that 
 MA> national unions and multi-national corporations, former 
 MA> presidents (though in this case this former president was a 
 MA> voter int he area), and sitting vice-presidents, enter into 
 MA> local elections, the only result can be a distortion of the 
 MA> democratic process to the detriment of us all.  
You'll get no argument from me on that last point...
email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com 
--- 
---------------