Summary Thoughts

[Jean T <mightmite@hotmail.com>]

Though one of the "lurkers" I have read through the comments and would just like to add my thoughts.

1. Rather than limiting the donation by whatever constituency, I think if we limited the amount allowed to be spent on a campaign by candidate, party, or special interest, it would eliminate the problems inherent in wealthy vs. poor candidates.  I would hope that we taxpayers would not be held responsible for the payment of these expenses to "match" what some wealthy candidate decides to spend.  I don't feel it is a "right" for the wealthy candidate to spend whatever he wants.  He must be willing to abide by the rules.

2.  The abuse of interpreting the constitutional amendments (whether implying a relationship of money to free speech, or the idea that the right for a militia to bear arms means that everyone should be allowed to own a firearm) should be squashed.

3.  TV networks have indeed been given airwaves which should be required to do some public service, but not required to air candidate ads for free.  Only qualified (and that must be determined, not anyone who wants to jump up and declare their "right" to be heard) candidates should be given the opportunity to discuss his/her views.  If a debate is held, then questions from citizens should be allowed.  Enough time for a real answer rather than a one-minute canned response should be accepted and real questions rather than those "accepted by the candidate" should be allowed.

4.  No question that the initiative process has been abused by special interest groups.  If total disclosure was required before advertising could begin, maybe the citizens would at least know who is promoting the initiative.  If there were a way to keep special interest groups from generating an initiative, that would be even better.  Perhaps each initiative should have a legal review prior to acceptance for the ballot to avoid the many court cases and confusion for the voter after the election.

5.  The idea of limiting contributions to anonymous contributors is certainly a stimulating thought.  I think contributions would be nearly wiped out!  It would also be very hard to monitor.

6.  I do agree that there should be a limit to the campaigning and fund raising that our elected officials now engage in.  Congress (or perhaps any other body) should adjourn for campaigning and fund raising.  They cannot do any useful work while working nearly nonstop to be reelected.  And non-incumbents (qualified, as indicated above) should be granted equal time on public airwaves, newspaper commentaries, etc.

I think this has been a wonderful chance to see what people across the country think about such an important topic.