RE: Group Reflections

[Denise Hood <hoodsx3@aol.com>]

Taylor:

I have been working on your challenge. I have only made it through Page 1, so far, and it's late Fri. night. I have a busy weekend coming up, so I don't know that I'll get to finish this up, but I HAD good intentions, anyway! Maybe someone else will accept your challenge and continue on, starting with Page 2, etc. Let me just say that it has been a pleasure. Thank you for Moderating this discussion! You have done a first-rate job! And thanks also to Patty Dineen, Laurie Maak and Bob Carlitz. 

And to my fellow contributors, and participants in this discussion, I have thoroughly enjoyed this bracing, invigorating exchange! I know I tended to "mix things up"  bit with my views, but I enjoyed every bit as much interacting with those who had TOTALLY different points of view, as I did with those whose views were much like my own! And especially to those I DISAGREED with, Don A., Kevin Brady, Dorothy Whitford, Al Kolwicz, Byron Bagnell, Philip O'Brien, Michael Laprairie, Jay Oliver, I just want to say, "I salute you!", for the strength of your convictions! And Viva la' difference! It takes many different viewpoints to make this an interesting discussion (as well as an interesting world!), and I hope that I have made some worthwhile contribution to the discussion. 

And now for the voices that emerged, from Page 1 of our discussion:

>From Alan Hatzis:  "elected officials spend far too much time and effort in the fundraising process, especially with incumbents, which restricts them from fulfilling their legislative duties to the fullest. It is time that our representatives begin to see their time in office as an honor and duty rather than a financial career".

>From Courtney Dickerson: "When I think of politics in America today, I often feel the same feelings - distrust and disillusionment."

>From Brian Wohlert: "I feel the financial burden on major candidates is too great, and reforms must be made to encourage less wealthy people with good ideas to run for offices."

>From Donald Roy: "The money race in effect locks into place a bipartisan political establishment. Democracy suffers."

>From Lori Cougar: "Critics of campaign finance reform fear that Americans will lose individual liberty by limiting the amount a supporter may contribute to their chosen candidate. I, however, am more concerned with the fact that my voice is being stifled by wealthy special interests who can afford to make their voices louder. When money governs our representatives more than the people do, it is time to take action."

>From Adam Kempton: "I, for one, am opposed to the idea of campaign finance reform because it imposes further restrictions on the already over-regulated lobby industry?we already have enough layers of government intervention, and there must be a point where we draw the line."

>From Kevin Brady: "Could political ignorance contribute to people's "distrust" of government?? It may be harder to learn the issues and check on what our representatives are actually doing, or not doing?.Have we properly prepared our citizens to understand the workings of government and politics? Once prepared, do modern citizens really care about the government"

>From Jay Oliver: "The true illness is the government's excessive power over individuals' freedoms and wallets. Until its ability to reward and punish inequitably is curtailed, affected individuals and groups WILL try to influence it, with campaign "donations" being one of their primary tools."

>From Ellen Russak: "Ideally, informed citizens trying to influence legislation by lobbying their legislators or working to replace those that aren't responsive, is the way our country is supposed to function. It certainly was not supposed to be run by a very few big money individuals and corporations and an apathetic constituancy. We can't condemn all lobbying as corrupt or we would be "throwing out the baby with the bath water." 

>From Karyn Gill: "What I have a problem with, however, is when the lobbyist uses money instead of the merit of the position to influence the legislator." 

>From Byron Bagnell: "Can't an informed and interested citizenry largely overcome the power of money?" 


>From Jennifer Stromer-Galley: "Candidates spend incredible energy raising money?I have heard that candidates, even incumbents, must spend half of every day raising money for the race for federal office?Why is it so expensive to run advertisements on TV?? there's a problem: the airwaves are publicly owned and leased to network affiliates through licenses?I strongly believe that requiring broadcasters to open the airwaves to candidates for free would go along way to helping solve the quest for the campaign contribution. If candidates were able to receive free air time, in 30 second or half hour increments, they would no longer have to raise the incredible amounts of money they currently need in order to gain access to the airwaves, which are by their very nature public.

>From Nina Powers: "Politicians are supposed to be public servants, not corporate servants. Until political contribution limits, and full public disclosure is the law of the land,government of,for,and by the people will continue to erode."

>From Don A.: "The Constitution would have to be changed to limit campaign contributions and I am not in favor of limiting free speech."

>From Jim Knauer: "The problem is that no laws can undo the corrupt practices if their implementation depends on the best politicians money can buy. Only an engaged, ever-watchful citizenry can get real laws passed and keep them effective. I'm not sure we are up to the task."

>From Ellen Russak: "Right now the ones who benefit the most from the present system are the corporations, large unions, and a very few, very wealthy individuals who basically buy the candidates and therefore are the only ones who are represented when they get into office. The media certainly are happy with the present system - what could be better for them except weaker campaign finance laws allowing more money to flow into ads?"

>From Ellen Taylor: ". Many messages have discussed voter apathy. When voters are not engaged the special interests gain control. Money is just one way to control the election."

>From Danetta Garcia: "once you start to give money as a reward for an action, taking it back -- stopping it, is out of the question. That's where we are with money in politics?You see money can be like quicksand -- It pulls you in before you know it, and there is virtually no way out. Money could possible be the downfall of many a politician, unless that politician is willing to recognize this early on -- that this is the American dilemma.

>From Joan Johnson: "those who govern need to put "communtity" back into the legislation they make. And there needs to be constraints on how they act to do so. That does not limit free speech. What it calls for is leveling the playing field for rich and poor alike. Being poor or disenfranchised does not nullify their constitutional rights for equal protection."

>From Jay Oliver: "WHY special interests try to buy politicians with campaign donations.
The answer is simple; almost all special interests fall into one or more of three categories. They want politicians: 1) to give them an inequitable advantage over others, 2) to remove a current advantage enjoyed by others, or 3) to impose upon everyone by force of law their particular beliefs and desires."

>From Grace Glaze: "the current system is not working. American citizens must have faith in their elected officials, officials who are supposed to uphold the democratic principles the founders deemed so important in the structure of the new government."

>From Phillip O'Brien: "I realize that the Supreme Court views it as a form of speech to spend money on campaigning, but something has to be done so that lower economic classes can win office."