The money spent on these campaigns, not to mention the ones to come yet this year, is DISGRACEFUL

[cyberpj]

in this economy with so many citizens unfed and without housing.
Not much mention of that during the 24-hr/day news coverage of it -
as if nothing else was happening either here or in the rest of the world.

U.S. television news is such a joke it shouldn't even be called "the news" anymore.

And this is a prime opportunity for public protesting
AGAINST private financing of campaigns
and FOR fair and equal public financing!

I'm not seeing it.

We, the 99%, should be bringing this up constantly at all of these candidate appearances.

MONEY OUT OF POLITICS was supposed to be a main objective of the movement, no?

Sorry.
I'm just feeling really old and tired of everything today and using DU to vent helps.

[WingDinger]

1. It would still cost plenty to do publically financed.

I think we should tell all media, pay up. Our airwaves. They must host campaigns media time. For their licenses. Then, we pay for their shuttling around. Maybe military transport. Reasonable accomodations. 3 star.

And thats alll the money they get. No more incumbency advantage. No more lobbyists. No more fundraising by all of washington. They work for their money, instead of panhandling the rich.

[cyberpj]

8. Sounds about right. But how do we get the people that make the laws vote against their own greed?

It seems once anyone gets "in", they're immediately converted to vote as their 'elders' advise them - almost as if someone is saying, "Or Else" to them.

And we don't get to change the whole congress at one single time so there are always those incumbants around to 'educate' the newbies.

[stevenleser]

2. The good news is, that money does go someplace, employ people, get the economy moving, etc.

I agree, on the one hand it is a complete disgrace. On the other, it is stimulative.

[cyberpj]

6. Tx. Good to be reminded there is some good coming from it. Still... there HAS to be a better way.

We do not need this CONSTANT coverage of every move, mutter, fart and burp any candidate makes.

Being a BBC World News watcher then returning to US Network "news" is a real wake up call.

I think public financing could be done if appearances were limited and all US media (paper, radio, TV) had to provide FREE AND EQUAL space and time per candidate.

Sigh.................

[SixthSense]

3. the only way to get money out of politics

is to get politics out of money

otherwise the incentives are too great

[woo me with science]

4. Occupy.

Now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Buying the government is the American Way.

Aka - Oligarchy

[Swede]

9. "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought."

nt

[cyberpj]

12. LOL. An honest politician is an oxymoron. n/t

[Gregorian]

7. I believe it's the primary reason we aren't living in a democracy.

It's a democracy filter. Corporations wouldn't want ordinary people representing the nation.

[Initech]

10. Citizens United - the worst SCOTUS decision ever!!!

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Without question

It's the equating of power with access.

The sheer ugliness of this end-run around the concept of a constituent republic is breathtaking, and the cynical judicial activism that caused it in the first place is beyond mere hypocrisy.

[EC]

11. It sure shows that communications and advertising is the industry

that will have plenty of jobs.

[onenote]

13. where do you think the money that is spent goes?

It goes into the economy. Some of it goes to big businesses like the broadcast networks. A lot goes to advertising agencies. A lot goes to cover the costs of paying for staff, for travel (hotels, airfare, transportation etc).

It doesn't just disappear.

[cyberpj]

14. As I said previously, above

It's good to think a bit about another side of the issue, still... there HAS to be a better way.

We do not need this CONSTANT coverage of every move, mutter, fart and burp any candidate makes.
Being a BBC World News watcher then returning to US Network "news" is a real wake up call.

Adding: I don't think the major broadcase networks or ad agencies necessarily need or deserve the money. And sorry, I realize that in this economy it's easy to point out economic supports but to me the costs of 'paying for staff, for travel (hotels, airfare, transportation etc)' are overkill and possibly unnecessary. If people want to hear their candidate's views they can watch the televised debates. All of the travel and public meetings just encourage lying to the region that needs to hear certain things to like that candidate. We shouldn't need political campaigns to give the economy a boost - how about politicians actually passing laws that do that instead?

As I said:
I think public financing could be done if appearances were limited and all US media (paper, radio, TV) had to provide FREE AND EQUAL space and time per candidate.

[onenote]

15. Most of the constant coverage is not paid advertising

While requiring the media to give up "equal space" to all candidates sounds good, it certainly wouldn't pass First Amendment scrutiny, at least when it came to the print media. And with all forms of media converging, imposing such restrictions becomes even more troublesome (i.e., does a web version of a newspaper have different rights than a print version? Why? Should websites, including DU, be subject to these equal time requirements?)

As for news coverage -- not giving up space and editorial control to a third party, but the simple coverage accorded a campaign -- I don't see how one could ever impose any kind of limitation on the amount of coverage given a campaign or, for that matter, to a particular candidate. Not everything a candidate does every day is equally newsworthy. During the period that Herman Cain was getting caught with his pants down, there were far more stories about him than about Santorum. There is no way that the government could or should be in the business of telling the media how much time they should have spent on Cain versus how much time they spent covering anyone else.