quote:
Originally posted by *\Conan/*:
John, its getting silly how much it costs to run a competative campain anymore. Good people are not being able to compete with these soft-monies. Representatives and so on use up to millions of dollars on their campains and staff. Scrutinys, media crap, and concerns about family run just as deep. I beleive the people should get the "donation" moneys twards infrastructures and social programs. Somehow. I dont know.. seems like such a huge waste of homeland assets.
Its not that Americans elect bad people..not by a long shot. We have talked about checks and balances in the past concerning elected officials. Most good and a couple not so good. I continue to vote [img]smile.gif[/img]
I can tell you that threw this major bankruptcy no one here is going to go against some kind of regulation in soft-monies. Its turning out to be the scape goat to try to keep people investing and the machine rolling. Confidence is running a little short out here lately. The big K takes the bite and congress gets younger and younger every year...Strom is ailing bad also.. and GB is never to be seen around here. [img]smile.gif[/img]
You're right about the cost Conan!!!!
I fear that the excuse of Enron's supossed influence will be used to write bad legislation ie: McCain/ whoever where individual businesses/corporations can not give but labor unions can. Or a law where an individual citizen or group of citizens can't pay for advertising for/against a bill/policy/canidate. From what I hear coming from the campaign refromers (granted it is from the news media)is "see Enron had paid all this money for influence" without a shread of evidence there was any influence. Refrom because of cost, ok, but not for nonexsisting influence we have laws that cover that already. And in this case they seem to have been followed.