Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton ended 2006 with $11 million in her Senate account, money she can transfer to the presidential bid she began in January. The $11 million in her Senate account gives her a clear advantage over her Democratic rivals. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama had about $500,000 in his account, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut had some $5 million that he could transfer and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware had about $3 million. Senators and House members can transfer money they've raised for congressional races to presidential bank account.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6387062,00.html Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

1,177 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 14 years ago by KikiPeepers

Do you think Senate Accounts (US) are fair?
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton ended 2006 with $11 million in her Senate account, money she can transfer to the presidential bid she began in January. The $11 million in her Senate account gives her a clear advantage over her Democratic rivals. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama had about $500,000 in his account, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut had some $5 million that he could transfer and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware had about $3 million. Senators and House members can transfer money they`ve raised for congressional races to presidential bank account.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlate...


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Bottom Last Post

13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Wednesday 10/3/07 - 11:25:33 AM EST (GMT-5)
Fundraising for politics in general is not "fair", but it's not like anything can really be done about it.
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Wednesday 10/3/07 - 11:34:25 AM EST (GMT-5)
Why isn't it fair?

If they raised the money for the purpose of running for office, they should be allowed to use it for their presidential run.

13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Wednesday 10/3/07 - 11:36:13 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 10/3/2007 11:25:33 AM heatherlw wrote:
Fundraising for politics in general is not "fair", but it's not like anything can really be done about it.

it's called mandatory public campaign funding: use tax money to fund candidates campaigns, make private donations illegal, and cap spending of candidates running for office. Eligibility for funding would be based upon some threshold of votes or small ($5) donations. This way, a common person with no connections to wealthy donors would actually stand a chance at getting elected.
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Wednesday 10/3/07 - 11:54:48 AM EST (GMT-5)
How would that work? If I decided to run for President would I instantly get $30 million in tax money to run a campaign?
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Wednesday 10/3/07 - 4:00:31 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 10/3/2007 11:54:49 AM CowDung wrote:
How would that work? If I decided to run for President would I instantly get $30 million in tax money to run a campaign?

"Eligibility for funding would be based upon some threshold of votes or small ($5) donations."
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Wednesday 10/3/07 - 4:03:40 PM EST (GMT-5)
How would you expect to get a "threshold of votes" if you can't raise money to run a campaign?


13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Wednesday 10/3/07 - 4:06:18 PM EST (GMT-5)
If fundraising were forbidden, only rich people could afford to get a campaign off the ground...
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Wednesday 10/3/07 - 4:43:43 PM EST (GMT-5)
well it has worked on a state level, notably in Maine and Arizona, and candidates for governor needed to collect between 3 and 4 thousand small donations to be eligible for public funding. That is doable even if you're not a millionaire, as long as you are dedicated and have a strong platform that people agree with...although having some money to start with is probably necessary. But I was wrong about making all private donations illegal, however they did dramatically lower the maximum donation limit to make using of the public funding system financially favorable.

13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Wednesday 10/3/07 - 4:55:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
I still think it could be cost prohibitive to start a campaign rolling to the point where you can get your message out to 3-4 thousand potential doners. The rich would still have a tremendous advantage--perhaps even moreso since the 'common guy' wouldn't have access to wealthy doners...

13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Wednesday 10/3/07 - 7:18:28 PM EST (GMT-5)
the donors don't need to be wealthy to be able to give $5, they just need to care about politics...and in this day and age, getting your message out to thousands of people is not that hard, not with the internet.
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Thursday 10/4/07 - 12:02:28 AM EST (GMT-5)
$5 won't buy much ad time--it won't even buy you a website. The guy who has $50k in his bank account still has the huge advantage...
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Friday 10/5/07 - 2:32:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 10/4/2007 12:02:28 AM CowDung wrote:
$5 won't buy much ad time--it won't even buy you a website. The guy who has $50k in his bank account still has the huge advantage...

the $5 isn't meant to provide you with funds, it's meant to prove that you have support from the public. once you prove that, the state will give you a cool mil for campaigning.
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Friday 10/5/07 - 2:47:55 PM EST (GMT-5)
but you need funds in order to get public support. You can't just stand out on a streetcorner and expect to attract 3000 supporters...
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Saturday 10/6/07 - 8:11:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
actually, in a big city, you probably could get a pretty large number...but there's also internet like I said. You would definitely need to know a lot of people who support you, I'm sure. They just don't need to be rich. If you have 50 or 100 people who support your cause, each of them could collect $5 from 50 or 100 others. Compared to the current system, you can't say this wouldn't give a huge advantage to the small players.
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Monday 10/8/07 - 8:26:02 AM EST (GMT-5)
With our current system, all you would have to do is get your message out to one or two rich guys and get their support...
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Monday 10/8/07 - 12:51:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 10/8/2007 8:26:03 AM CowDung wrote:
With our current system, all you would have to do is get your message out to one or two rich guys and get their support...

and how do you do that without catering to their agenda? oh right, that's why corruption is rampant in this country
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Monday 10/8/07 - 5:23:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
What exactly would be "their agenda"?

It's no different than convincing a poor/middle class person to give their financial support for your candidacy--except that you don't have to find several thousand supporters to get your campaign off the ground.




You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 If a defendant is found `not guilty`, do you assume that they are innocent?

2 Should transgender people use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificates, or by what gender they most look like?

3 Have you ever gotten a small loan of a million dollars?

4 Have you ever been in a fist fight before?

5 Is Rock and Roll here to stay?

6 Would you rather have no elbows or no knees?

7 Do you think Donald Trump will become the president of the United States?

8 Is Squidward`s skin color blue or green?

9 Has anyone from youthink ever been on Jeopardy?

10 Are you a dedicated follower of fashion?

More Questions
Friends
Daily Moment of Joy
Personality Quizzes
Funny Videos
I-Am-Bored.com
Free IQ Test
The Impossible Quiz
Intelligence Test
Relationship Test
Doodie Cartoons
 
Edit