And this is from 2004, when things were cheaper - campaign costs, and fundraising time and efforts, have only increased since then. They can't possibly focus on their jobs and do them well, or have the right frame of mind when voting on specific issues (ie the good of the country, or the desires of the majority of their constituents, rather than their own selfish interests/lobbyists to whom they are indebted to vote on behalf of), if half their attention is on raising enough money to get elected the next time around. Campaign finance reform is an absolute must.
Cost of Congressional Campaigns Skyrockets
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 3, 2004
The four neck-and-neck races that collar Philadelphia are crowded with candidates who are willing to commit that time and effort. Gerlach said he dials for campaign dollars one to three hours every day. Murphy, his opponent, spends a quarter of her time raising money, an aide said. Schwartz's opponent, Brown, "spends about 50 percent of her time making phone calls and going to events that can assist with fundraising," said Carl Fogliani, Brown's campaign manager.
“The only two [politicians] I know who enjoyed [fundraising] both went to prison.” That’s how Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) accurately described how much members of Congress loath fundraising during a congressional hearing in 2009.
Recent estimates reveal that many members spend anywhere from 25 percent up to 50 percent (and sometimes more) of their time fundraising, especially as an election approaches. All this time spent fundraising could be better spent meeting with constituents or working to solve our nation’s many challenges — and with debates over Libya, the debt ceiling, gas prices and unemployment, there are many.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
I would much rather have a set amount of public money spent by each candidate and no fundraising or private money allowed. Political ads not provided by the candidate should be banned. As much as I dislike the idea of limiting free speech...the whole election process has gotten out of hand. Any ideas how we can level the playing field without restricting the use of PAC ads and unlimited spending by the candidates?
In the one controlled setting - two candidates face off more than once - money doesn't budge the results by two points. You may be confusing cause and effect.
archer wrote: I would much rather have a set amount of public money spent by each candidate and no fundraising or private money allowed. Political ads not provided by the candidate should be banned. As much as I dislike the idea of limiting free speech...the whole election process has gotten out of hand. Any ideas how we can level the playing field without restricting the use of PAC ads and unlimited spending by the candidates?
For once we agree on something. Since we pay for these campaigns anyway, I think there should be a standard number of taxpayer funded debates and an equal amount of money given to each candidate for advertisements. Wouldn't it be refreshing not to see 10,000 political commercials each election year? People who are interested in candidates (and therefore worthy of voting) could also visit publically funded websites that the candidates could use to explain their platforms. This would be much cheaper for all of us and nobody would get a bigger advantage because they have more rich donors or a bigger wallet.
In fact, I'd be thrilled if they were restricted to 90 days of making their case before an election...that way the current president could spend his/her working the other 9 months (like we pay them to do) instead of campaigning.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
archer wrote: I would much rather have a set amount of public money spent by each candidate and no fundraising or private money allowed. Political ads not provided by the candidate should be banned. As much as I dislike the idea of limiting free speech...the whole election process has gotten out of hand. Any ideas how we can level the playing field without restricting the use of PAC ads and unlimited spending by the candidates?
For once we agree on something. Since we pay for these campaigns anyway, I think there should be a standard number of taxpayer funded debates and an equal amount of money given to each candidate for advertisements. Wouldn't it be refreshing not to see 10,000 political commercials each election year? People who are interested in candidates (and therefore worthy of voting) could also visit publically funded websites that the candidates could use to explain their platforms. This would be much cheaper for all of us and nobody would get a bigger advantage because they have more rich donors or a bigger wallet.
In fact, I'd be thrilled if they were restricted to 90 days of making their case before an election...that way the current president could spend his/her working the other 9 months (like we pay them to do) instead of campaigning.
To all the above! There is no limiting free speech - they have social media outlets, websites, YouTube to put up videos they create, print options, etc. as do the PACs and other interest groups. What that does do is limit those who don't have or want internet access, and will increase pop-up ads before news stories, etc.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
archer wrote: I would much rather have a set amount of public money spent by each candidate and no fundraising or private money allowed. Political ads not provided by the candidate should be banned. As much as I dislike the idea of limiting free speech...the whole election process has gotten out of hand. Any ideas how we can level the playing field without restricting the use of PAC ads and unlimited spending by the candidates?
For once we agree on something. Since we pay for these campaigns anyway, I think there should be a standard number of taxpayer funded debates and an equal amount of money given to each candidate for advertisements. Wouldn't it be refreshing not to see 10,000 political commercials each election year? People who are interested in candidates (and therefore worthy of voting) could also visit publically funded websites that the candidates could use to explain their platforms. This would be much cheaper for all of us and nobody would get a bigger advantage because they have more rich donors or a bigger wallet.
In fact, I'd be thrilled if they were restricted to 90 days of making their case before an election...that way the current president could spend his/her working the other 9 months (like we pay them to do) instead of campaigning.
What that does do is limit those who don't have or want internet access, and will increase pop-up ads before news stories, etc.
Well there have always been people who don't have phones, tv, computers, or just live in remote areas. If someone wants to vote and wants to learn who the candidates are, they don't have to exert much energy to get that info. I doubt there are too many people out there who are interested in who is president but don't have any way to know who they are or what they stand for.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
To all the above! There is no limiting free speech - they have social media outlets, websites, YouTube to put up videos they create, print options, etc. as do the PACs and other interest groups. What that does do is limit those who don't have or want internet access, and will increase pop-up ads before news stories, etc.
