Friday, January 16, 2004
Texas Special Election Draws Big Candidate Loans
A press release put out today by the group Texans for Public Justice reveals that candidates running for two vacant Senate seats in Texas have raised nearly $3 million. Of thirteen candidates, just seven have raised more than $20,000. This effectively cuts the field of candidates in half from a wealth primary long before any voter has their say.
The seven candidates with big money have raised a third of their funds from personal loans. This is troubling for two reasons. First, it means that only rich folks who can afford to loan their campaigns huge sums of money can afford to become "viable" candidates. Second, it means that whoever wins will then turn around and raise funds that will in effect going into their own pockets to repay their loans. It doesn't get much closer to bribery than that, does it?
A press release put out today by the group Texans for Public Justice reveals that candidates running for two vacant Senate seats in Texas have raised nearly $3 million. Of thirteen candidates, just seven have raised more than $20,000. This effectively cuts the field of candidates in half from a wealth primary long before any voter has their say.
The seven candidates with big money have raised a third of their funds from personal loans. This is troubling for two reasons. First, it means that only rich folks who can afford to loan their campaigns huge sums of money can afford to become "viable" candidates. Second, it means that whoever wins will then turn around and raise funds that will in effect going into their own pockets to repay their loans. It doesn't get much closer to bribery than that, does it?
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Shame on John Ensign
Nevada Senator John Ensign has come to a shocking conclusion that even the meager limits we have on money in politics should be eliminated. As reported here by KRNV.tv in Nevada, the incument senator asked high school students whether its more important to spend millions of dollars to persuade people what beer to drink (as corporations currently do) or spend millions of dollars to persuade people what candidate to support (as corporations also do, although evidently not spending quite as much as they do on beer advertising.)
Clearly, senator, politics is more important than beer. This is precisely why elections ought not be for sale, even though it's perfectly fine if beer is.
Nevada Senator John Ensign has come to a shocking conclusion that even the meager limits we have on money in politics should be eliminated. As reported here by KRNV.tv in Nevada, the incument senator asked high school students whether its more important to spend millions of dollars to persuade people what beer to drink (as corporations currently do) or spend millions of dollars to persuade people what candidate to support (as corporations also do, although evidently not spending quite as much as they do on beer advertising.)
Clearly, senator, politics is more important than beer. This is precisely why elections ought not be for sale, even though it's perfectly fine if beer is.
Monday, January 12, 2004
Republican Primary up for Sale?
Two of three major candidates in the Republican primary for California's third congressional district are multi-millionaires who have vowed to spend "whatever it takes" to buy themselves a seat in Congress. The third, who by comparison makes a paltry $480,000 a year as a hot shot Washington lawyer, could benefit from a new loophole in federal law that could allow him to raise three times as much money from big donors as his competitors. The idea of this so-called Millionaire's Loophole is to allow non-wealthy candidates to compete with the millionaires. But as a practical matter, it means that voters will get to choose between two super rich candidates, and one sorta rich candidate who is backed by many sorta rich donors. Doesn't leave much room for ordinary Americans to either run for office or have their contributions influence the election, does it?
Details can be found here in the Sacramento Bee.
Two of three major candidates in the Republican primary for California's third congressional district are multi-millionaires who have vowed to spend "whatever it takes" to buy themselves a seat in Congress. The third, who by comparison makes a paltry $480,000 a year as a hot shot Washington lawyer, could benefit from a new loophole in federal law that could allow him to raise three times as much money from big donors as his competitors. The idea of this so-called Millionaire's Loophole is to allow non-wealthy candidates to compete with the millionaires. But as a practical matter, it means that voters will get to choose between two super rich candidates, and one sorta rich candidate who is backed by many sorta rich donors. Doesn't leave much room for ordinary Americans to either run for office or have their contributions influence the election, does it?
Details can be found here in the Sacramento Bee.
