I stayed up to watch (mostly on CNN, but flicking over to Fox from time to time) much of what was going on in Iowa out of interest (obviously it was silly o'clock in the morning here, so I didn't watch all of it!), but the prominence of two issues really struck me. Firstly, how dependant the whole thing is on money, with the candidates financial resources dictating their possible overall success or otherwise to a large extent. Secondly, how much religion seemed to be considered an important issue for voters. Obviously, the system over here is entirely different, and we don't have this preliminary round of selecting candidates at all (they are chosen by the members of their parties as party leaders, and aren't directly voted for at general election time - the leader of the largest party gets to be PM). However, neither of these things are really considered at all during elections, either internal party leader elections or general elections. It's a fascinating system you have over there, but those two issues were things I found particularly strange, and in some senses quite worrying in terms of the effectiveness of democracy in selecting the best person for the job (not that the UK system is perfect, of course!). Obviously religion is something that seems to be there to stay as a factor, though I admit I find it slightly strange for religion and politics to be so intertwined - politics over here is more or less entirely secular, and religion is not something that voters or commentators really consider as a major factor in voting. My primary question really is this - should money play quite so important a part in who is able to become a candidate for president, or should limits be placed on that to allow people with less financial muscle to compete on a more level playing field?
Newt of all people got taken out buy the people he supported, Citizen United / Supreme Court choice of Big Money Buying Elections. It couldnt have happen to a nicer Guy. It was such a pleasure watching Newt whine and beach about it not being fare well Duaaaa Newt yea think?
No, it shouldn't. But the problem is that a TV commercial, or a movie, or a book or other political advertising is free speech. It costs lots of money to put up a TV commercials, a movie, a book or other political advertising. To eliminate funding, eliminates the TV commercials, movies, books and other political advertising, which eliminates Free Speech. Free speech is protected under our Constitution. That is the reason why money is protected under our Constitution. Its really quite simple, except for those who support limiting free speech, because they don't want people funding TV commercials, movies, books and other political advertising they don't agree with. This was the heart of the Citizens United Case, where Democrats tried to limit a Conservative organization from releasing trailers of a political movie prior to the Democratic Primary elections in 2008 because they didn't like the message of the movie. They tried to squash legitimate free speech, so the Supreme Court decided that to end such abuses, to simply blanket approve all funding as Free Speech. I agree with that decision because it is inherently evil to try and limit TV commercials, movies, books and other political advertising merely because one doesn't like the message held within, or just because someone they don't like can afford to buy more TV commercials, make more movies, publish more books, or other political advertising.
I see what you are saying, and I would also never be supportive of ending free speech. There has to be some way, though, of operating democracy in a manner that is less open to complete dominance through cash. That's where some limits could possibly be imposed so that it isn't so dependant on who has the most cash to spend, without (IMO) limiting 'free speech', or the right of the parties and individuals to put their message across (whatever message they like) to the people. In the UK, party election expenditure for general elections is limited to £30,000 per constituency being contested (for a period of one year, leading up to an election), so for a 'national' party, contesting all seats, they can only spend just less than £20m in total on things like advertising and so on: They can say what they want, but only spend that amount on it altogether, so there is at least some limitation to prevent those with massive financial resources from gaining electoral advantage directly from it. How they spend it is generally up to them, but there is a ban on paid advertising on broadcast media, so they can't use their money saturate the TV with their own adverts. Instead they are allocated a number of 5 minute 'Party Political Broadcast' slots on the main 'network' TV channels (in fairly 'prime' slots, immediately after the main news, for example), so they can get their message across to the electorate using the TV in that way. It's again designed to stop money being the main driving force of political success. Could something along those lines (not the same, because the circumstances and electoral process are different, obviously) be used in the USA? A limit on overall election spending by each candidate (and their supporters - note the 'notional expenditure' section in the quote above), for example, or a limit on the amount of TV time they are able to buy/use, or something like that. I don't see that that would limit free speech at all, since they would still be able to say what they want (including about each other, if that's the way they want to play it!) and advertise it to the public, but just that they would have a limit to prevent money having the dominance over the democratic process that it seems to have now. It's a dificult one to find a solution for, I agree, but it just seems wrong to me that certain candidates are not going to be able to compete effectively with other candidates simply becuase the other candidates have so much greater financial resources to use - it doesn't seem a particularly democratic or 'free' system to me, if it is so dominated by money (and therefore, directly or 'indirectly', by the interests of those people/corporations who have lots of money).
Free speech is not free, let's face it! As Senator McCarthy explained, people are free to say what the rich tell 'em, blasted paupers!
