POST SCRIPTS

The situation mentioned above has not been much of a concern when it comes to campaign finance reform.

The real problem is the undue influence money has in determining election outcome and it's effect on the democratic process.

We can always point to a few good examples where even big money couldn't get the bums elected, but unfortunately there are hundreds of other examples where it did!

However, just for arguements sake lets say all the heavily funded candidates were honest and credible and had made no backroom deals to get the big donations. What about all the other candidates that will never be able to play because the burden of fund raising is either so distasteful or so onnerous they can't go forward. You must know there are lots of good people who are excluded for this reason, right? Sure, I've seen it and lived it. I've researched this area and I am absolutely convinced this happens and it results in fewer and fewer good candidates willing to step up to run for office. That is called a lack of competition and that can't be good for democracy!

As big money pours into campaigns voters rightly suspect it often comes with strings. This does not help the voters to trust politicians, and thats fine, but it there is a growing problem that goes with this. A lack of voter interest!

There is a strong perception of elections more or less just being bought because of the big money it takes to get elected and too often that perception gets validated! That can't be good for democracy...voters distrusting to the point of dropping out because they are fed up with the games, how is that helpful?.

One might say, look big business was just supporting a business friendly candidate with big contributions and while that could be true, the bad examples of quid-pro-quo deals far outnumber those with a purely philosophical interest, with no expectations of reward for their generous support.

Our founders had problem with a lot of what goes on these days, like political party's and there dirty tricks, or with vote buying and even politicians making a career out of elected office. Well, me too and I'm always looking for good solutions to bring more integrity and transparency into our elections without compromising our 1st ammendment rights.

Jack you are right about the founders. It's as if they knew we would not be successful at keeping the republic we were given. I think it's because they were painfully aware of the fallen nature of man. This is why keeping high moral standards is so important. Without that we sink to lower and lower levels of performance.

But we are where we are. As we have discussed many times before, the biggest job ahead is raising the conciousness, literacy and yes, the morality of our good citizenry. In the mean time we must work within the framework that we have...and as you discovered that isn't easy.

There are a lot of "good men" who will not become lawmakers or leaders in the country. That alone is not enough. It is a job I would not aspire to simply because it includes fundraising, gladhanding, and long hard hours...and all of that is BEFORE you do the job you are elected to do. Few of us are prepared to accept that challenge and reality.

I think the person who, in modern times, is the best example of having done it with grace is Ronald Reagan. His life and training included: humble & spiritual beginnings, training in public speaking, an avid interest in politics and society, president of a large (somewhat political)organization, active participation in party politics, personal correspondance with leaders of his party and others, the establishment of a committed and fired up support/advisory group with varying backgrounds, and the ability to build a following. These took him to the governorship and then the presidency but he spent many hours (years) before he realized those goals working and talking and fundraising. His firm grounding allowed him to accept support without compromising principles or promising anything but service in return.

Most people who run for office are lacking in some or many of those things. They start without the grounding and support, setting themselves up to fall into compromise or shady deals, and leaving themselves open to undermining influences.

Maybe because so many politicians have earned the low opinion we have of them, we have begun to think of leadership as a "normal" job. One of those jobs that most anyone can step in and do. I think it's a job that asks much more...at least it does if it's ever going to garner our high esteem. It is a job that asks for "service" and that is something few of us are prepared to offer today.

Well I've gone off on another tack...I maintain it isn't money that corrupts...it's people that corrupt themselves. We can change the finance laws every which way but loose and in the end we will still be stuck with people, many of whom will play the game badly.

A question for you Jack, since you do have this experience to draw from:

Tell us the difference, if you can, between party strategy on the up an up...like a football team would do, and "back room dealing".

Tina, thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Re your question, well, I think we all know what legitimate strategies are, but a backroom deal might be anything from a candidates promise to provide relief for a certain area of taxation in exchange for support (catering to special interests) to a hit piece planned for the 11th hour of the campaign where his opponent has no reasonable chance to respond. I guess in the most general terms we think of backroom deals as being perks for special interests or special people that represent payback for help during the campaign. Sometimes it's legal, sometimes its not.
But in most all cases its shady and of questionable ethics.

Thanks for answering my question..but I'm not sure we all know what legitimate strategies are in politics...and I think that blurred line gives the media and certain others a lot of room to distort things in order to smear an opponent from the "other" party, or as Hillary is discovering, the less popular choice. Just a thought.

Hi Tina, well, ok... just to try and clarify legit campaign strategies I would say they would include, but are not limited to the following:

Seeking volunteers, doing fund raisers absent soft money (money given to an outside group to do your bidding and circumvent campaign finance laws), questioning your opponent on the issues and pointing out your differences. Advertising such as mass mailings, then there is seeking endorsements, taking advantage of every opportunity to do public speaking, write editorials, get a website and do frequent press releases. As the election day approaches there are yard signs, bumper stickers and such to be handed out. These are all within the norm.