The congressional race in the 23rd District in New York is a perfect example of why people should not be able to contribute money to a candidate for whom those people can't vote. Ninety-five percent of the contributions to Doug Hoffman's campaign are coming from outside the district <link>. Those outsiders should not be deciding an election for a candidate for the Congress. Doing so undermines the control that local constituents should have over their own representative.

God Speed,

David

Well, on one hand I agree with your notion that "outsiders should not be deciding an election for a candidate for the Congress", but on the other hand, money only allows candidates to get their message out to more people, get it out more often or get it out for longer periods of times, correct?

So no matter, the people who will be represented will be the ones casting the actual votes, so it is difficult to present any specific "wrong" with the system as it is now unless you are of the opinion a candidate must run with only the monies he has personally or can get locally. Which may very well be a noble concept but it sure is not a moral let alone a legal issue.

Voting for a representatiave that dosen't live in your district is such a touch of genius for the Conservatives, it slaps the local Liberals around with it's sense of power and control over the CON-tard destiny. There is no better way to be represented than by an outsider with no bias as to your real needs. But so what if the GOP is filling its halls with uninformed bigots who espouse economic and social CON-tard bibical mythology inplace of doing the people's business. And what is new? Way to go folks, your ultra conservative willingness to sink your own ship is amazing.

Money gives candidates access to the media and to campaign staff that can get out the vote. Money therefore influences an election because it influences voters in a biased fashion. That is why I'm suggesting that the practice be made illegal.

I live in a rather Conservative part of California, but I don't want outside money deciding who my congressman is. That is the business of people in my district. The election in the 23rd district, by virtue of the proportion of outside money, is a perfect example of why it isn't appropriate for outsiders to be making a decision for the district.

God Speed,

David

Elections should be decided by voters in a district or state. Money should not be a factor, and this is a way to diminish that influence.

marching orders and the good liberals out there parrot the bromides like good little robots?

KA

LOL

What are you talking about?

In the case of the New York 23rd, it's clearly the other way around.

The marching orders are being given by the right wing noise machine, and the local winguts are all marching to the beat.

was being parroted by Wobbles.

you can find it on KOS, democratic underground, crooks and liars, and any number of liberal blogs, verbatum.

KA

sorry to ruin your rant.

The only time that I've heard of the idea of restricting contributions to people who can actually vote for a candidate came from Ambassador Keyes during the 2000 primary. He raised the subject during a debate. I thought it was an great idea than and now.

I would be interested in any citations from the web sites that you mention because I would like to see how those folks view the idea.

Kal heard about those liberal blogs from FOX...lol

you to, because they wanted to somehow, illiegitimize what is leading up to be a defeat for the dear leader's party.

Something to think about, if you did restrict contribution from outside the district, you libbi-poos would suffer worse than anybody. That's the whole reason of being for organizations like Moveon.com.

KA

and look how much money George Soros has spent to buy his congress.

listened to FOX first.

because as we all know, I don't have cable nor satilite TV.

KA

sorry to ruin your premise.

Focus on the proposal rather than on what you are imputing as my motives. The proposal would also curtail Soros's funding people for whom he can't vote. Besides, we are talking about the 23rd District which has voted GOP since 1852.

Let me say this again; I have only heard this idea from Ambassador Keyes. If progressive groups have broached the subject, I haven't seen it but would appreciate the support. If you want to keep Hollywood out of your back yard, I would think you would like the idea.

By the way, I would appreciate your take on the idea of limiting donations to people who can vote for a candidate. If all you want to do is rant a succession of non sequiturs, please do so on another post.

That's OK, because it doesn't alter the substance of my "rant" in any way.

The tune is being called by carpetbaggers, and the wingnuts are marching to it!

campaigns of whomever they choose. BUT....contributions in amounts of any size, MUST be made public, and in time for the voters to pass judgment on them, before they cast their votes.