With Hillary and Barak declaring their run for the Presidency in FEBRUARY 2007 ... when the elections aren't until November 2008 ... do you think there should be a limit to how early a person can declare?
Do you think there should be a limit to how much money they should be allowed to spend during their campaign?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I do not think there should be a limit to how early someone can declare their candidacy for any office.
But I do think all campaign contributions should be registered as taxable income to the candidate. Then you would see some changes in campaign financing and how the dollars were ultimately spent wouldn't you?
One more thing - make it law that all taxes collected from the political process must go directly to the national debt.
Welcome back Pam!!!!
I don't think there should be a limit on when, but DEFINITELY on how much and type of campaigning. Taxing campaign funds is a start, but what do you do if the funds are used by a larger group? i.e. a political party (This as was paid for by XXXX for the XXXXX of XXX) It is another example of escalation....you do 'this' to create change, so they do 'that' to get around it.
I love the possibilites that seem opened up by the declaration of candidates.
I think the sooner we know, the better. More time to "get to know" them.
The prospect of a president that is not the cookie cutter image thrills me.
And I love PE's idea about taxing the campaign money as income.
I really think 21 months before the election is a BIT early. Only the seriously, seriously rich or well-backed people would be able to campaign for that long ... of course, it also gives them more time to be tripped up by something stupid.
Of course another way to look at it CIN is that a not-so-wealthy person would need at least 21 months to build a grass roots campaign on a shoe string budget. So maybe 21 months isn't really enough.
There are actually 8 officially announced Democrat contenders, and at least 3 Republican.
Oops, make that 7 Democrat - Tom Vilsack bowed out. I know - wjho the hell is Tom Vilsack? I don't know, but he is no longer running for President.
I think they can start to run any time they want and spend as much as they want. But maybe we should do it like they do in England - no radio or TV ads until 2 weeks before the election.
I am already sick of the election coverage - AND WE ARE OVER 600 DAYSFROM THE ELECTION!!!!.
So, I will just not pay any attention to it until at least summer of next year.
I like PEF;s idea - make the contributions taxable as income for the candidate - that will stop them!
CAN'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH HOW EARLY
THEY DECLARE WHAT I WANT TO SEE IS CONTROL ON THE MONEY. LET THEM COLLECT ALL THE MONEY THEY WANT BUT
THE GUY DONATING IT IS DULY NOTED AND LISTED, HIS BUSINESS ETC. NO MORE LOBBYIST THROWING IT IN THE POT
FOR A WALL STREET BIGGY OR HOLLYWOOD
MOGUL AND IT IS FULLY TAXED WHEN
DONATED. THAT SHOULD SLOW DOWN THE
EARLY CAMPAIGNING. PARTICULARLY IF
AT VOTE TIME ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE AGAIN DULY NOTED.
First Question: Yes
Secod Question: Yes
My own opinion: Give each candidate free non-primetime TV coverage so the American People who desire too can watch and decide for themselves. By the time it gets to the debate, it's too late to know who satnds for what. Beside Kerry blew it at the Presidential Debates, and that in my opinion resulted in Bush winning by a narrow margin.
Post a Comment