Time to MOP Things Up
Tom Vilsack is a s-l-o-w learner. It took him 56 years to figure out what most of us know by the time we're old enough to vote:
I ran up against something where good ideas, great effort, lots of hard work was simply not enough.
So much for the myth of the American Dream.
Yesterday, Vilsack dropped out of the presidential race because the money hurdle — $100 million seems to be the entry fee these days — was higher than he expected.
Time to wake up and smell the corruption, Tom. Politics in America is driven by Money. As Robert Byrd put it:
It is money, money, money! Not ideas, not principles, but money that reigns supreme in American politics.
We can change this ugly fact of political life if we choose to. And simply put, we can't get our country back until we do.
So let's do it. Who's stopping us? Let's take the Money Out of Politics. Here are some ways we can start to MOP things up:
Restrict the length of campaigns — weeks, not years.
Ban political advertising.
Ban paid lobbying.
Ban political contributions by any entity except individuals.
Restrict how much a candidate can spend on an election, including the candidate's own money.
It doesn't have to take big bucks to run a political campaign. Newspaper articles, TV and radio debates, platform pamphlets, and web sites are just some of the relatively inexpensive ways the public can learn about candidates' ideas and experience.
America was founded on the principle that government should be by, of, and for the people. But somewhere along the way, that principle has been corrupted to government by, of, and for people with money. It doesn't have to be this way.
What ways can you suggest to MOP things up?
Comments
I think your ideas are pretty good.
It seems like limiting the money that can be spent, and concurrently enacting stiff penalties for those who cheat the system, is the best plan.
I keep thinking of salary caps in the NFL. If you want parity, you have to cap the cash. Period.
Posted by: Praguetwin | February 26, 2007 10:23 AM
Love all the suggestions, but especially the first. I find the "endless campaign," to be a huge damper on the spirit of the average voter.
Posted by: Kvatch | February 26, 2007 12:34 PM
Thanks to you both. Prague, I like the analogy with the NFL.
Kvatch, I couldn't agree more. The money issue aside, these 2-year election cycles are just nuts. People become sick of the campagin months before the first primary.
Posted by: abi | February 26, 2007 07:16 PM
I still like what the rightwingers call socialism..publicly financed elections..at all levels of govt. Oh, and jail anyone that is caught cheating.
Posted by: Dusty | February 26, 2007 07:42 PM
Right you are, Dusty. Socialism is the word they drag out whenever someone tries to level the playing field.
Posted by: abi | February 26, 2007 10:03 PM
Wow, I just replied to your comment about this same topic on my blog and asked if you had any suggestions. You did - and they're all great ones. I like the idea of limiting the length of campaigning, but I think limiting the advertising is my favorite. People rely too much on soundbites to make their decisions. If they were forced to read about the candidates and listen to their speeches, they might make more intelligent choices.
(One can only hope.)
Posted by: Kathy | February 27, 2007 06:19 PM
A great idea. I'm sick of rich guys buying their way into office. Fucking Bloomberg is a prime example. He bought the election in 2002 (though Giuliani's endorsement right after 9/11 coupled w/ Democratic ineptitude certainly helped.) But then his poll numbers were in the high 30's for the first three years of his office. So what's he do? He drops 65 million bucks on advertising for the entire year before his re-election and gets his approval numbers from the high 30's to the low 60's.
That tells me two things: a) Americans are stupid and b) if you've got a shitload of money for advertising, you can sell almost anything.
You're right - MOP!
Posted by: reality-based | February 27, 2007 06:58 PM
Thanks Kathy. I agree about the ads. People like to say that ads don't affect their vote, but pols don't spend megabucks on ads because they don't work.
Remember the book The Selling of the President, that showed how ads sold Nixon to the public like so much soap? I remember being shocked (really) at that concept. The presidency? A commodity like soap and cereal? But that's what we've allowed campaigning to become.
rbe: if you've got a shitload of money for advertising, you can sell almost anything.
No better proof of that than George Bush.
Posted by: abi | February 27, 2007 08:32 PM