REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE OR POST A NEW MESSAGE   

Date  | Author  | Subject  | Thread

Choice Three

  • Archived: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:05:00 -0500 (EST)
  • Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:00:08 -0500 (EST)
  • From: Susan Taylor <mstaylor@mindspring.com>
  • Subject: Choice Three
  • X-topic: Choice 3

I have just finished reading through and attempting to "digest" all the postings since Sunday. I am totally impressed with the thoughts and deliberation that I am seeing as I scroll through the dialogue.

Choice three offers what I believe is the "high road" choice if we had elected officials and citizens who operated from an ethical base of "what is best for our country" mentality. I am cynical enough to believe that too many elected officials, lobbyists, and citizens do not operate from the premise, "what is best for our country." The premise that we most often operate from is "what is best for me and mine."

Upon refection on my experience and on what has been said in this forum, I believe that MADD, AARP, NRA, Green Peace, PETA, etc. have been started by one or two people who were passionate about a personal experience that set them on fire to make a difference in the way people act. Along the way, professionals and "lobbyist" have joined in with these groups and brought expertise and power with them so that the group can accomplish its goals. Often, we are better off because of these groups, often these groups and others have not been successful in pushing there goals.

Regulation on campaign finance is not working as far as I am concerned. You cannot regulate ethics and morality. If an elected official or a candidate will take "soft money" or accept gifts and favors, then that individual is not taking the high road and no matter how many regulaions, reforms, or laws we pass these indivduals will still get around the "system" and consider themselves justified in doing so.

The "system" or process we have now is an indication that "trying" to regualate and reform campaign financing is a slippery and slimy cause--"nailing jello to a wall"--and no matter what comes out of congress, I believe it will be side stepped and will not accomplish the goal of "making people act ethically and morally" when it comes to politics. It is simply window dressing.

The solution? Leave it wide open and let the pieces fall where they may. Will there be corruption? Yes. Do we have corruption now? Yes. Will there be inordinate amounts of money from wealthy people contributed to candidates? Yes. That is happening now, and it will continue to happen. Instead, could we have a "mad as hell" attitude about people being unethical and immoral and not acting for the good of our country who act instead on their own self-intersts?


Date  | Author  | Subject  | Thread

Welcome | About this Event | Briefing Book | Join the Dialogue | Search the Site