Debates used to define support for our candidates. So we're going to replace that with a money race?

[bigtree]

Folks who are banking on the financial reports from the candidates today - telling us how much money they've raised to define their level of support - are setting us up for the most superficial, issue-free campaign in history. I can't believe any of us would fall for this. All it would take is for some candidate with an endless bankroll to intimidate others from competing, especially this early.

Also, the way this process has been artificially advanced along with the artificial focus on money raised early, before Americans have a chance to see these candidates compete against each other in a public arena side by side, seems to mesh together a little too conveniently. It wouldn't be the first time that voters were disenfranchised from the ability to choose from a wide field of candidates by party manipulations- even if the advancement of the primaries was initiated in the states.

I can't help feeling that the fix is in. I can see, though, how the anointing of the money leaders this early could lead to voter dissatisfaction down the road because of the narrowing of representation of issues and concerns to an advantaged handful. If I were a lower-tier candidate with just a few million in the bank, I wouldn't scatter like the pundits are suggesting is inevitable. I would do the best I could with the fundraising, hang in until the debates and give voters a choice.

I remember Ross Perot had a nice size bankroll . . .

[Diane R]

1. I resent it, too. Especially considering the Clinton's strong-arm fundraising tactics.

[bigtree]

2. .

[knowbody0]

3. It so rips my sack

wasted frivolous spending. We have homeless vets, Katrina victims still in Idaho, kids without health care. It is so sick that money determines who will take the White House, but actually it is an affirmation of AmeriKan values. Pity.

[bigtree]

4. The thing that rips is the money goes to the media

who does nothing but distort

[blues90]

5. The entire way this works makes me sick to no end .

What it does is re-affirm the idea that money makes the man/woman .

If these candidates were truely concerned about a better country then why did none run fundraisers that were designed to contribute to vital causes ? They have the ability to do this but never consider this as the best word of mouth campaign prespect there exists .

Never mind , just my idealistic side forced to the surface , I forgot reality .

All the years of talk about campaign reform and this is what it has evolved into .

I can say I am not sending a dime even if I had one to any campaign fund . I refuse to be a part of supporting this failed two party government anylonger .

Yeah , money accounts for all in all the wrong places .

[bigtree]

6. and look what we get for most of the money contributed

idiotic commercials

[blues90]

7. That's about it too .

In an ideal world , we would have some commercials daily that displayed the reality of this war and the people sitting in FEMA trailers and people looking for jobs . But you only see these in documentaries .

What is it now 100 to 300 million each needed to run . This is complete insanity as well as one sick joke .

[MadHound]

8. The money race has been the primary factor in determining elections for over a couple decades

In fact if you go back over our history since the civil war, and especially WWII, you'll find that money has been the dertiment factor for the majority of the campaigns. And of course the majority of that money comes from the well off and corporate donations.

This is why we need publicly funded election campaigns, from dogcatcher to president. Place the determining factor back into the hands of the people and let the vote determine the outcome, not the dollar.

[bigtree]

9. considering that most is spent on advertising,

we may need to look at providing equal air time.

[MadHound]

10. Oh certainly.

I'm in favor of the British model, each candidate gets X amount of money, X amount of free air time and print space, and almost as important, X amount of time to run in(my nomination is 6 months) I'm tired of elections cycles that start a week after the previous election ends.