KamFool --<<While I do appreciate the philosophical intent of the article, its a bit naive to assume that any organization (corporation, trade association, interest group, etc.) that can be affected in a dramatic way by public policy will not attempt to influence those decisions. We live in a competitive, capitalist society where everyone is looking for an edge. >>Understood. I think they should be allowed to make their points and try to influence decisions, but not by money. (Since money seems to speak louder than words.)<< The numbers regarding fundraising (especially soft-money) are clearly troubling. However, the reason that those sums need to be raised are because of all of us. Expensive television ads sway the public. They get people elected and re-elected. If Americans spent more time critically assessing the policies of our elected officials, rather than reacting to advertisements and cable t.v. talking heads, our quality of government would rise a bit. >>Indeed. It's a shame that so many campaigns seem to come down to sound bites, not substantive discussions. Still, I think that the system could be rearranged so that candidates are assured some airtime, without their having to raise millions and millions for ads. I'm also troubled by how wealthy candidates are able to bankroll big campaigns, putting less wealthy candidates at a major disadvantage. It somehow seems undemocratic. It would be great if we could somehoe equalize things a bit, perhaps setting a small maximum TV spending limit, for example.Selena
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra