Steve, it seems to me that if money was not an issue more people would
be able to enter the political process. Yes there would be a bureaucracy
but no larger then the one that currently exists...maybe smaller. You
get x signatures and you are in the process. You get more and you begin
to get money. Maybe people with no money and good ideas would be heard.
Orlando
Steve Smith wrote:
Orlando -
I appreciated your riff of quotes earlier on this thread.... good
contribution.
Of course, the Supreme Court (the name now sounds surrealistic) has
prohibited the following suggestion citing a violation of free speech
but here it is anyway. All Federal elections should be federally
funded and all campaign contributions from any source should be
prohibited. Various qualification stages would be created and
candidates would then be given money. All candidates would be
restricted to the same spending limits.
This sounds good on the surface but I fear we already suffer from it
being way too hard for anyone without inside connections to get into
the process. I have very few examples where bureaucracies (set up
with all the best intentions) work to achieve the original purpose.
They often seem to stymie as much as facilitate.
That said, I'm not offering a better plan, though I agree that big
campaign contributions are a problem in almost every case.
- Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
Orlando Leibovitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.orlandoleibovitz.com
Studio Telephone: 505-820-6183
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
