Isn't this illegal?

[daleduke17]

I don't remember seeing his campaign until the year prior to the election. Three years would have meant he'd practically started after Bush got re-elected.

February 2007 through November 2008. Damn near two years. You can't deny that.

[Hobbs]

That's not three years. That's not even two years. That's a year and nine months. When did McCain and the GOP start campaigning? Or the other Democratic hopefuls, for that matter?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Remembering that all of them were trying to win the primaries well in advance of the general election.

[infinitemonkies]

How's this for a campaign finance reform law:

All campaign contributions must be made anonymously.

[daleduke17]

That's not three years. That's not even two years. That's a year and nine months. When did McCain and the GOP start campaigning? Or the other Democratic hopefuls, for that matter?

You're missing the "OR' in "two or three years" and the "damn near" in "damn near two years". You are very selective in what you read, aren't you?


EDIT TO ADD: Here are the dates of officially announcing their candidacy for President:
Mike Gravel - April 17, 2006
Dennis Kucinich - December 12, 2006
John Edwards - December 26, 2006
Christopher Dodd - January 11, 2007
Hillary Clinton - January 20, 2007
Joe Biden - January 31, 2007
Barack Obama - February 10, 2007
Bill Richardson - May 21, 2007

Duncan Hunter - January 25, 2007
Mike Huckabee - January 28, 2007
Mitt Romney - February 13, 2007
Ron Paul - February 20, 2007
Rudy Guiliani - February 15, 2007
John McCain - April 25, 2007
Fred Thompson - September 5, 2007

I'm sorry, over 18 months of campaigning is bullshit, especially nowadays. That's why limiting the amount of money and time one can have for campaigning would be beneficial for reforming the campaign process.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

You still haven't explained why it's bullshit, much less 'especially these days'.

[daleduke17]

You still haven't explained why it's bullshit, much less 'especially these days'.

The internet makes it so much easier for information to be spread that one does not need to make multiple repeats of the same speech.

Even transportation has evolved so much that one could go from LAX to NYC in 4-5 hours, make a speech and still be able to make another stop before the end of the day.

So, what would be almost impossible or certainly rarely attainable even 50 years ago is able to be done quickly nowadays to make speeches or appearances.

That's why it's bullshit.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The internet makes it so much easier for information to be spread that one does not need to make multiple repeats of the same speech.

Even transportation has evolved so much that one could go from LAX to NYC in 4-5 hours, make a speech and still be able to make another stop before the end of the day.

So, what would be almost impossible or certainly rarely attainable even 50 years ago is able to be done quickly nowadays to make speeches or appearances.

That's why it's bullshit.

And one speech is, by your definition, enough to establish someone in the public eye?

In a perfect world where everyone was hungrily searching for information that might be true, but it just isn't so. In order to convey an idea much less run for president one needs to continuously present themselves to the public in a variety of ways. Moreover, one must also demonstrate to different areas and groups what one's political ideas mean for them, and why that's a good thing.

We want our candidates to have as much exposure as possible, so the maximum number of voters have the best possible idea of who their options are and why they're voting for whoever they've chosen. Many people thickheaded as they are, decide based solely on party, but there's a substantial middle ground that therefore need to make an informed decision more so than if the poor voters didn't play into it.

[Hobbs]

You are very selective in what you read, aren't you?

From your own post, so are you. More than five people began campaigning before Barack Obama, and yet you seem to single him out in your vilification. It's been 2 years...he's president, get over it.

[HYHYBT]

How's this for a campaign finance reform law: All campaign contributions must be made anonymously.

I'm pretty sure that would make things far worse than they are now. All such a requirement would do would be to make sure *the public* cannot find out who is financing a candidate or position; there are very easy ways for a large donor to make sure the candidate knows, unofficially of course, where the money came from.

[Boozy]

Its kind of sucky, but on the other hand many politicans wouldn't be able to run without that money

Miraculously, candidates for political office here in Canada somehow manage to run for office without contributions from corporations and special interest groups.

Individual contributions are permitted, and we also have public funding.

[infinitemonkies]

Personally, I think the bulk of campaigning should be done in the form of debates and/or town hall meetings, open to all candidates.


If you need to limit the field, require candidates to get x number of supporters' signatures. So an early local debate might be open to anyone who could get 500 people to say "Hey, this guys got some good ideas." Whereas later, nationally televised debates might be limited only to candidates who have picked up at least a million supporters, or something along those lines.

[draggar]

Yeah, the horror as in only rich people will win. The grand majority of people won't have any idea who you are if you don't get some coverage leading up to the election, much less have any idea what you intend to do.

Isn't that how it is now? How many current middle / lower class people are in the US Congress? I think it's somewhere around zero. This is how the system is now.

No, it ensures that NOBODY would be able to get any significant amount of notice without heavy backing by the media. "News" coverage, after all, is free.

.. and biased and poll data is easily manipulated.

How's this for a campaign finance reform law:

All campaign contributions must be made anonymously.

Hell no! I want the opposite! I want to see exactly where people are getting their money. I consider it a 100% bribe when a company or person contributes a large amount of money towards someone's campaigh just to have that person promote laws that would benefit the donator!

Miraculously, candidates for political office here in Canada somehow manage to run for office without contributions from corporations and special interest groups.

Individual contributions are permitted, and we also have public funding.

The issue is that with individual contributions corporations can still donate - just though their owners / CEOs.

If a candidate is strongly against anti-trust laws, what difference would it make if Bill Gates or Microsoft made a $50,000,000 donation/

Personally, I think the bulk of campaigning should be done in the form of debates and/or town hall meetings, open to all candidates.


If you need to limit the field, require candidates to get x number of supporters' signatures. So an early local debate might be open to anyone who could get 500 people to say "Hey, this guys got some good ideas." Whereas later, nationally televised debates might be limited only to candidates who have picked up at least a million supporters, or something along those lines.

Yes, our current system is clearly baised from the beginning, you have to be a major R or D candidate to be taken seriously. I think all the debates last year (at least the ones that got airtime) had 2-3 candidates. Hell, even the supporters who are insisting that you vote for their candidate didn't know how many people were on the ballot!

[Boozy]

If a candidate is strongly against anti-trust laws, what difference would it make if Bill Gates or Microsoft made a $50,000,000 donation/

There's a $5000 cap (I believe) on individual contributions.

[draggar]

There's a $5000 cap (I believe) on individual contributions.

Then cam corporate contributions - but you can easily get around those.

Owner donates $5,000
Chariman of the Board, $5,000
CEO $5,000
CFO $5,000
Executive VP - $5,000
Financial VP - $5,000
5 lower VPs - $5,000 each ($25,000)...

Corporate:
Main company: $5,000
Spun-off company#1: $5,000
Spun-off company#2: $5,000

etc..