Darwin Likes to Talk About Campaign Reform
Jeff, over at Portfolio.com posts about some comments recently made about Barack’s advantage in campaign funding:
Kerrey, who’s now president of The New School, claimed that “the big unreported story” of the election cycle “is the tremendous spending advantage Obama’s got. If everything else is equal, and it’s not equal in this race, but if everything else is equal, McCain hasn’t got a chance.”
Asked why he thinks the story isn’t getting adequate coverage, he responded, “There’s a liberal bias. There’s a preference for Obama and it’s getting underreported as a result.”
Does this excessive amount of money bother Darwin? Is it so troublesome that he is unwilling to support the campaign more likely to be influenced by money than any of the other candidates. Seems to me that if he is as worried about undue influence by financing politician’s campaigns he would be wise to avoid voting for Barack. In fact I’m willing to bet only the libertarian candidate would not be vulnerable to such influence. Will Darwin vote for Bar in November to prevent companies from influencing politics with their money?
Stay tuned to find out.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Doesn’t taxpayer money being spent on campaigns bother you Steve? At least Obama is using only private money. I’m sure he is abiding by the rules set out by the McCain-Feingold act regulating campaign financing.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Campaign finance reform and nuclear power were the two things that most attracted me to McCain in the first place, but he fucked it up by cozying too much to the religious right, which is an even bigger turn-off for me than big business. While a libertarian candidate might (MIGHT) refuse donations (not like they’d be offered many, since they have no chance of winning) they’d probably also want to remove all forms of regulation, which is a big part of what got us into our current mess.
October 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
So when you are forced to choose between implicitly accepting the undue influence of corporate money on a candidate or rejecting such influence by abstaining from voting for that candidate you toss your commitments out the window.
Your commitment to getting big money out of government extend only to republican candidates. If a democratic candidate procures those kinds of funds you will still vote for him. Nice to see you have skin deep convictions.