if this is not your candidate's number one theme, get another candidate

[welshTerrier2]

the following quote is from Supreme Court Justice Stevens:

"When campaign costs are so high that only the rich have the reach to throw their hats into the ring, we fail to protect the political process from undue influence of large aggregations of capital and to promote individual responsibility for democratic government."

and if short and sweet is more your style, consider this quote from Watergate's Deep Throat: "Follow the money."

We Americans pay a very dear price indeed when the corporate pipeline pumps its cash into our political process.

[fazoolius_2006]

1. Good...

lets repeal McCain-Feingold then.

[babylonsister]

2. Is that anyone's theme in this day and age? Sounds like a pipe dream. nt

[welshTerrier2]

3. campaign finance reform is not a pipe dream

until we restrict corporate contributions to the political process, nothing will change.

[babylonsister]

5. Like I said, a pipe dream if you're being realistic. I don't mean to

argue, I just don't see it happening. Might as well do away with lobbying while you're at it, something else I don't see happening anytime soon, sadly.

[welshTerrier2]

6. here's where I disagree

if you are focused on whether this battle will be easy or whether it can be won anytime in the near future, then I don't disagree.

but to write it off as a pipe dream and to suggest, if you are, that it is not EXACTLY where ground zero in the battle should be focused is a critical mistake.

so, I have no disagreement with your statement "something else I don't see happening anytime soon, sadly."; again, if your point is that it's so hopeless we shouldn't even try, then i strongly disagree. And if you don't think we should demand of each and every candidate that they join the fight and help lead us against the vast and well-funded corporate armies, then I disagree again.

there is no path that leads anywhere save the one that fights to restore our democracy. either We The People are empowered or someone else is.

[babylonsister]

8. After reading this this a.m., I'm a bit more disillusioned today than I was

yesterday; if our own party doesn't want to make changes, I don't hold out much hope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3337796&mesg_id=3337796

[LWolf]

7. I don't see it as a theme, but here is what one candidate says:

(bolding mine:)
<snip>

The largest roadblock toward the American Restoration is a corrupt campaign finance system that promotes plutocracy allowing laws and regulations to be stealthily auctioned to the highest bidder. Less than 1% of the U.S. population contributes 80% of the money in federal elections. The top 1% in income also received more than half the Bush tax cuts. Tax policy has become an engine for transferring wealth upward. Enron had been poised to dominate energy markets worldwide largely because it strongly influenced the White House and donated to 71 Senators and 186 House members.

Private control of campaign financing leads to private control of the government itself and schemes like the privatization of social security, which would put trillions in retirement funds of Main Street workers at the disposal of Wall Street speculators. Public control of the political process requires public financing. The restoration of our American Democracy depends upon public financing. The Supreme Court, equating money with free speech, will not restrict the power of corporate interests to dominate government. The establishment of our democracy began with the Constitution. Let us renew the Constitution by amending it, requiring public financing to redeem from the perishable fires of corporate control an imperishable government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Banning soft money is a step in the right direction, but doubling hard money limits is a giant step the other way, and one that has received much less attention. The National Voting Rights Institute challenged that change on behalf of a coalition of non-wealthy voters, candidates, and public interest organizations -- including the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Fannie Lou Hamer Project, and ACORN. That suit alleged, quite accurately, that doubling the hard money limits excludes non-wealthy voters and candidates from the political process on the basis of their economic status, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the United States Constitution. When only 0.11% of the voting age population contributed sums of at least $1,000 to a 2002 congressional candidate, doubling the limit to $2,000 provides even more power to a tiny financial elite. Those large contributions amounted to 55.5% of the candidates' individual fundraising.

Think about that. More than half the money driving the political campaigns comes from 1% of the people. And we wonder why popular positions, like universal health care or a living wage, are not enacted. Six of the 10 major party candidates for president in 2004 raised more than 75% of their money from contributions of $1,000 or more, and that includes President Bush, who raised more than all the Democrats combined. Most people cannot pay $2,000 to attend a dinner with a candidate.

It is very difficult to run for office at all if you are neither rich nor willing to accept money from corporate interests. I know. I'm trying to do it.

http://kucinich.us/issues/campaignfin.php

[babylonsister]

9. I do like Mr. K. and do like a lot of things he stands for; thanks for that. nt

[liberal N proud]

4. What we have here is a government for the corporations by the corporations

Until we stop the money from them, they will control the agenda and "we the people" will continue to get screwed.

[slipslidingaway]

10. K&R n/t