[Maul of America] Pedro for President

From: GCCR <robustoman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: maulofamerica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:48:59 -0500 (EST)
Mitch Album's Sunday column tackles presidential campaign
spending: "All this cash -- and one of them will lose!"He starts off
with a whimsical comparison between national and high school elections:
Now, $122 million should be enough to run a campaign. In fact, it seems
downright generous of us taxpayers. And if every candidate has the same
ceiling, it's at least a level playing field. Like we used to do in
high school.

Remember? If you ran for class president, you were entitled to one
poster and one flyer. Same as everyone else. You couldn't outdo your
rivals by spending Mom and Dad's money and papering the school with
paraphernalia.One poster. One flyer.The rest was up to you...Now, we
shouldn't be surprised that high school makes more sense than the
federal government. Most things make more sense than the federal
government.
I hope he's kidding (at least partially), otherwise it sounds like he
wants the U.S to model its presidential election laws after "Napoleon
Dynamite."Then, he engages in a little class warfare:
...the most common argument for keeping this unfair system in
place?Free speech.That's right. People argue that they ought to be
allowed to give their money wherever they want, to bundle it however
they can, because to deny this is to deny free speech.

I don't know. An individual can give $4,200 to a presidential candidate
next year (for the primaries and the general election). That's not
exactly free speech. In fact, $4,200 represents about 10% of the median
annual income for an American family.Poor people can't give that much.
Middle class can't. Rich people can. So tell me again how this is about
free speech and not ensuring special interests get their candidates in.
Rich people could afford to donate waaaaaay more than $4,200. But under
the concept of "fairness" they can't. In effect, the wealthy are being
penalized. So, what's the problem? Does Album want the law to read NO
individual contributions at all?BTW, Album totally ignores union
campaign activities. For instance, I wonder what the cost of a union
negotiated a day off for elections translates into? Does he think
that's fair?Finally (and perhaps more significantly), political action
committees (PACs) and soft money are also NOT mentioned. However, these
are MAJOR components of the current election funding landscape. In
fact, early attempts to regulate campaign spending actually CREATED
these entities which many are complaining about now. Doesn't that
deserve a sentence or two at least?All in all, the column proves (yet
again) that Album is a lightweight when he ventures too far beyond
sports (and sometimes when he ventures into sports too!).

--
Posted By GCCR to Maul of America at 2/11/2007 11:28:00 PM
[Maul of America] Pedro for President

Other related posts:
