Consider, though,
1) Corrupt people will look for positions of power to exploit for
profit. The level of moral rectitude in an area is lowered the more
corrupt peple are attracted to it. Librarians are more likely to be honest
than high level politicians or CEOs.
2) The environment for politicians is more corrosive than that for
everyday jobs. Powerful people with lots of money to spend/bribe etc are
constantly battering on the moral walls of elected officials. People who
would not cave as librarians may well do so as politicians.
3) If an everyday person is corrupt, only a few people in their way may
suffer. But if a mayor or governor etc is corrupt, the whole city or state
suffers. And they have LEGAL power over you, which everyday people seldom
have.
--
Re c) The only way the Green Party would have as much money as the Ds
and Rs in our present system is if they got big bunches from corporations,
PACs, rich families, etc. Corporations etc are not going to give big
bunches of money to a party unless the party is basically pro-corporation
etc. Which the Green Party, fundamentally, is not. A party of the people
will always have great difficulty matching the funding levels of the
parties of the rich. The Green Party can get lots of money only if it
stops being the Green Party. What it can and does get is lots of
volunteers/workers, many more per party population than the Ds or Rs.
--David Shove
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> a) I regard my campaign contributions in the same way I regard my vote. As
> long as it is given under the constraints of the law, it is my business and
> no one else's. I am a taxpayer and I don't believe that I have a right to
> know who contributes to whose campaign.
>
> b) Raising money during non-election years is an option available to all. By
> virtue of name recognition incumbents do have advantages. It does strike me,
> however, that R. T. Ryback's name is sufficiently known to wipe out that
> considerable advantage. If a non-incumbent candidate has a compelling
> alternative program, money has and will continue to be available during
> election and non-election years.
>
> c) Had the Green Party raised as much money as their opponents, it is, at
> least, arguable that they would be more heavily represented in elected
> offices than they are. If Lisa M. can raise a half million dollars for the
> campaign, then that's a half million going straight back into the local
> economy. We can all argue about public spending priorities but these are
> private spending priorities and, as such, are and should be privately decided
> according to one's conscience. It is just possible that a candidate who
> raises and spends a half million dollars for a local mayoralty campaign has a
> vision for the city that is compelling enough to be an incentive to spend at
> that level.
>
> d) I certainly agree that any campaign information required by law should be
> published as widely as possible: on the WEB, in the newspapers, on radio and
> television, posted on public bulletin boards in malls and shopping centers. I
> would suggest that someone other than R. T. Ryback design the WEB pages,
> since his www.rtformayor is not universally accessible to every computer!
>
> e) Perhaps, part of the confusion stems from the fact that some campaigns
> don't like what the law says and would change it to be more in accord with
> their thinking. To that, I say, "Terrific!" Go out, campaign, raise enough
> money to run a campaign that will attract voters, get elected and change the
> law. On the other hand, it does seem a little odd that a controlling legal
> authority can't or won't publish a governing opinion.
>
> f) Any system can be corrupting, if those participating tend toward
> corruptibility We have come to a place in our political life when
> constituents can barely buy a donut and a cup of coffee for their elected
> representatives. Are there folks in government who are corrupt? Yes. Are
> their people in the Building Inspector's offices who are corrupt? Doubtless.
> Are their people in the private sector flipping mortgages and victimizing the
> poor? Assuredly. Are their child care workers making off with the milk money?
> Probably. Are there attorneys embezzling client funds? Read the newspapers.
> Is some reporting in the local and national newspapers simply shilling for
> advertisers? You betcha. Are their doctors who misbill insurance companies?
> Certainly. Is all that corruption characteristic of our society? Personally,
> I don't think so. I think most people wherever they work get up in the
> morning and go to work away from home or at home with never a thought of
> taking advantage of someone else let alone stealing from them or using their
> influence to disadvantage someone else. Isn't it just possible that Jim
> Niland takes his political positions out of a sense of principle and
> commitment to his constituency rather than having been bought off? Now Steve
> Minn and Annie Young are folks with whose political opinions I often have
> little patience (for very different reasons) but I do not think they are
> corrupt and I never thought that their campaign fund raising was corrupt. It
> is, I hope, still possible for people to have policy disagreements without
> questioning the essential goodwill and honesty of their adversaries.
>
> Ken Stewart
> Nokomis Village
> 12-9
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
