Campaign Finance Reform
by BushBGone04
Oct. 7, 2003
If there is to be anything good to come out of this
administration, it has served to highlight the fact that we are in dire need of
campaign finance reform. Fortunately, in their arrogance, Bush et al are so
blatant about their cronyism and reward system that it's evident to even their
staunchest supporters. They may still deny it, but with a lot less passion
because in their heart they know it and they know we know it.
First, Bush removes the need to bid on any contracts. Why make your friends have
to put in a low bid? With the bidding process gone, the Bush Bunch would be free
to bid whatever they could get away with. I can see some high-fives going on at
the country club over that.
This is not the only administration to reward big campaign contributors. It's
done all the time. This is just the first time it's being done while openly
thumbing noses at the American tax payer. If there's no contract for a
"friend's" product, well that's just a temporary condition. A situation can
always be created to put the product in demand...like, let's see, anthrax
vaccine?
Even if the election in '04 removes the current clan lining their pockets, there
will always be "special interest groups" more than willing to "invest" in a
campaign that will bring a return many times higher than the investment, in
government contracts and made to order legislation. It has become such standard
Washington practice that a red light should have to be installed over the White
House door, indicating that the "favors" of those inside are for sale. It's
about time we stopped selling the Presidency of the United States to the highest
bidder.
Every year the IRS processes 200 million returns and collects about $1.7
trillion. An extra ten dollars to process from each return won't cripple the IRS
or break the taxpayer. This would not be an option to donate as is presently on
the tax form. It would be a flat fee that will automatically be included as a
cost to run the government. That would allot $2 billion to elect our
representatives to be split by the parties. Spending any more than that is
obscene and $10 a year is a small price to pay to keep our government governing
"we the people" instead of "we the special interests with the most money." No
other funds would be allowed. This would also prevent the buying of the
Presidency and level out the playing field. In non-election years the money
would go into a fund to finance primaries. In order to be eligible to enter a
primary a candidate would have to collect a certain percentage of signatures to
prove he or she is a viable candidate supported by the people they intend to
represent.
If 2 or 3 parties can't get their messages across for 2 billion dollars, they
shouldn't be running because I sure wouldn't want them having anything to do
with the national budget. If corporations can't contribute, our elected
officials aren't beholden to anyone and can base their decisions on what is best
for the country instead of who has to be paid back. Remember, payback is a
bitch!
10-07-03