"I wish they would only take me as I am" - Vincent Van Gogh               "How Can I believe in God when just last week I got my tounge caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?" - Woody Allen              "Our truest life is when we are in dreams awake" - Henry David Thoreau              "I took a speed reading course and read 'War and Peace' in twenty minutes. It involves Russia" - Woody Allen            "When promulgating esoteric cogitations, eschew platitudinous ponderosities" - Mark Rowan, my father            "Up, sluggard, and waste not life, for in the grave there will be sleep enough" - Benjamin Franklin             "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." - Albert Einstein            "Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence" - Ronald Reagan            "It's odd that you can get so anesthetized by your own pain or your own problem that you don't quite fully share the hell of someone close to you." - Lady Bird Johnson              "I still want to be the candidate for guys with confederate flags in their pickup truck" - Howard Dean

e-mail me

My Photo
Name:
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, United States

Graduate of the University of Oregon, Married for 4-1/2 years to my High School sweetheart. I am currently residing in Cleveland while I attend med school.

  • John McCain
    • Read what I feed

    Powered by Blogger

    Saturday, November 04, 2006

    No on Proposition 89

    People who think that the vast amount of money spent by politicians is a sign of corruption drive me nuts. As The Only Republican in San Francisco discussed, it's really a sign of health. People claim that a politician with a great deal more money is somehow corrupt, or that the candidate with less money is at a disadvantage. Rather it is not a sign of corruption, but rather an indication that the candidate with more money to spend has more support (with the exception of nutjob Ned Lamont). People donate money because they support a candidate. Thus, more support leads to more money, more money leads to a better campaign. It's something I've written about in the past in my response to Rep. Nancy Pelosi's hopes of banning all lobbyist contributions.

    What Rep. Pelosi fails to understand is the same erroneous thought process that is the basis for Proposition 89, which would create "clean money" elections to "level the playing field". Essentially, if Prop 89 passes, candidates who qualify would be eligible for government financing if they choose to eschew private contributions. If the opposing candidate out-fundraises the "clean money" candidate, the Government will match that amount, thus ensuring that each candidate has equal funds, contradictory to the support=money scenario above. Whether or not you deserve the financial support, the government will give it to you. We should all recognize government funded elections as a huge failure, contradictory to the US system.

    In our current financing scheme a candidate who supports an extreme ideal is unlikely to gain much support, and will, thus, not gain much financial backing, lowering his chances in the election. This is a logical cause-and-effect scenario. However, under the somewhat socialist model proposed by proposition 89, such extreme candidates will be entitled to equal financial backing, paid for by the state. After all, we wouldn't want him to be at a disadvantage. Prop 89 fails to understand why a candidate does not have financial support.

    The concept that Proposition 89 will somehow eliminate corruption is also absurd, and seems to rely on the mistaken premise that political contributions are nothing more than bribes. Rather, political contributions are a type of freedom; freedom of speech/expression by allowing people and companies to support the candidates they wish. Occassionally a candidate can be bought. Yet, even with public financing a candidate is still able to accept personal bribes. Consider Rep. Duke Cunningham, or Senator Harry Reid.

    Proposition 89 would not level the playing field, it would give an extra advantage to those who don't deserve it at the expense of those who do. It would stifle the freedom of expression we currently enjoy, and create an unfair, unrepresentative financial support system. If one wants to target corruption, there are better ways to do it.

    Cross Posted at California Conservative

    1 Comments:

    Anonymous prying1 said...

    I'm looking at my list right now GC - I have a big "N" right next to the number 89!

    I'm with you on this one (and probably a lot of others too!)

    8:28 AM  

    Post a Comment

    Trackbacks

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home