Campaign Financing

[ricky bobby]

One would assume that when a law limits individual campaign contributions the idea is to level the playing field so that not so well connected, qualified people might have a chance to win an election. But as with most well intentioned laws this idea has been subverted. The biggest contributors to candidates, own or control businesses and other entities that each contribute $500 that add up to thousands that ordinary citizens can't match. While this may be inside the legal box, in my mind it is clearly unethical and reeks of impropriety. When one individual contributes thousands, I suspect that the motive is personal gain, not the interest of all citizens. For that reason, I check out candidates and when I see someone receiving almost $10,000 from one person that sends me a message.

[mputnal3]

I completely agree with you but the voters will have to change how they vote to encourage true statesman instead of politicians. We have to vote on the issues and not party affilliation. We have to find out more information about the candidates to make sure they practice what they preach. If money is considered free speech then we will have to allow candidates who receive less campaign contributions to immediately move to the top of our list. Money will define a candidate and he/she will legislate accordingly. We simply have to take money out of the equasion if we want the debate to be about the most qualified candidate. We simply have to take partisanship out of the equasion if we want the most qualified candidate to represent us. We simply have to avoid getting information from radio and tv advertisements. We simply have to put more effort into discovering who these candidates are, how have they represented themselves in the past and what methods they using to define issues and solve issues. In other words are they connected to people in our communities or are they just gifted at rhetoric? One last question to ask of our candidates, "Are you speaking to me or are you speaking to hear yourself speak?"

[Andy A]

I completely agree with you but the voters will have to change how they vote to encourage true statesman instead of politicians. We have to vote on the issues and not party affilliation. We have to find out more information about the candidates to make sure they practice what they preach. If money is considered free speech then we will have to allow candidates who receive less campaign contributions to immediately move to the top of our list. Money will define a candidate and he/she will legislate accordingly. We simply have to take money out of the equasion if we want the debate to be about the most qualified candidate. We simply have to take partisanship out of the equasion if we want the most qualified candidate to represent us. We simply have to avoid getting information from radio and tv advertisements. We simply have to put more effort into discovering who these candidates are, how have they represented themselves in the past and what methods they using to define issues and solve issues. In other words are they connected to people in our communities or are they just gifted at rhetoric? One last question to ask of our candidates, "Are you speaking to me or are you speaking to hear yourself speak?"

Excellent advice and if we were to follow it, we would have a much more informed electorate as well as responsive elected officials.

[j p nettles]

Campaign Financing? That's what they tried to burn John Edwards for isn't it? A lot of people on the receiving end of lots of money from people who want to buy influence are sleazy public officials with no scruples. Campaign financing reform will never work because slick lawyers stay awake at night figuring out ways to get around such laws.

[Andy A]

Campaign Financing? That's what they tried to burn John Edwards for isn't it? A lot of people on the receiving end of lots of money from people who want to buy influence are sleazy public officials with no scruples. Campaign financing reform will never work because slick lawyers stay awake at night figuring out ways to get around such laws.

And just exactly what do you suggest as a solution to the problem?

[j p nettles]

And just exactly what do you suggest as a solution to the problem?

Perhaps a requirement that candidates publish the names, addresses and the amounts of their contributors and other information that is public record in the supervisor of elections office. Most voters probably don't go to the trouble to find this information.

[Bob Wells]

They already do that.

[mputnal3]

I would bet that not many voters follow the money in deciding who to vote for. I would bet that many voters vote by party affilliation regardless of issues. It seems to me if you approach every election as a true independent then you would have more motivation to review each candidate's record including campaign contributions. If voters want "change" in the way our legislators conduct themselves we will have to "change" how we vote. What message do you think would send to politicians if 50% of all voters changed their voting status to independent? I believe that we live in a time where true leadership will start at the bottom. Politicians seem to be defined by money and money is more powerful because of campaign finance allowances. If we really want a better democracy we will have to "think" outside the box that politics have put us in.

[j p nettles]

Let's face it. We have what amounts to a one party system in Walton County. To me it isn't important how far to the right a county official is. I'd like to see ethical conduct and fair representation to all citizens, but as long as everyone is consumed with the notion that only Republicans hold office, corruption will prevail.

[Andy A]

There is no doubt that removing the D and R from behind the names in our local elections would help. However, I do not agree "that only Republicans hold office, corruption will prevail." is valid in any manner, shape or form. There is some corruption that occurs in all political parties but it is much less prevalent than many would believe. Party affiliation at the local level could be a non-issue if we, as voters, would make it so by insisting our elected representatives change the present requirements.

[ricky bobby]

John Edwards didn't have anything to worry about with the campaign financing charges. Well connnected politicians can get away with anything. In Florida if elected officials finds themselves with more than they spent on the campaign they can pocket a few thou and call it something like travel expense.

[j p nettles]

I think I'll vote for the candidates with the fewest signs and the least amount of campaign funding.

[ann watson]

In Alabama it seems that some campaign contributions are considered bribes. Just ask former governor Siegleman.

[Andy A]

In Alabama it seems that some campaign contributions are considered bribes. Just ask former governor Siegleman.

We aren't Alabama, and until we change our present campaign system, contributions are not "bribes". Further, it is an insult to those who contribute to a candidate in whom they believe, to say such is so.

[j p nettles]

We aren't Alabama, and until we change our present campaign system, contributions are not "bribes". Further, it is an insult to those who contribute to a candidate in whom they believe, to say such is so.

Ann, I believe that you have insulted that paragon of virtue, Richard Scrushy. But don't worry, we don't have anyone in the Sunshine state like him.

[j p nettles]

I've noticed that one candidate running for office in Walton County had an ad in August in the NW Florida Daily News yet there's nothing in the financing report listing the ad(s). Isn't this unusual?