Campaign Contributions and Accountability
One thing we don’t need are more laws that provide too many pages of requirements detailing the dos and don’t of campaign contributions. It wouldn’t be worth the effort, and the empty suits who would have to vote for it would create a bunch of back doors and loop holes allowing them to get money in some unholy way to pervert an election. By the way do you know where the word loophole came from? It originally was a small hole in a fortified wall used for observation and to fire weapons through. How appropriate that the opportunity to shoot an attacker has been used to identify a legal slight of hand to screw somebody. In this case the voters.
To continue with the KISS concept we always have a low tech method to impose ethics and justice to an election. If a candidate accepts a dime from any organization that candidate should be branded as a whore. Nothing in this life is for free; maybe when you go to visit your family or a friend, they feed you and give you something to drink, and they don’t expect anything in return. But in the real world a candidate who accepts money from anyone for anything, they are being paid to be that organization’s paid whore.
Why do candidates need that much money? The only reason I can think of is to spread their tale of woe; to try and convince us to ignore the man behind the curtain pulling the strings. Dorothy and the Tin Man were smart enough not to fall for that crap and we should be that smart as well. They use that money to determine what it is that we want to hear, and then to tell us what we want to hear. Too many of us believe the crap they tell us and then we’re disappointed when they get into office and ignore us. If they accept campaign contributions it can only be to use it against us. More voters need to learn how much money they took from whom and for what?
If the candidate has not lived a life of honor and integrity, then the only reason they took that money is to screw the voters. They intend to use that loop hole to shoot us in the back. Money in campaigns means lies and distortions. TV and radio ads mean somebody is tap dancing, and they aren’t supposed to be. Voters don’t do enough to look into the past history of who the candidate was before he or she became a whore. (Whore, candidate is there a difference? Make up your mind I already made up mine) was he or she an honorable person in the past? Could their friends and neighbors trust them with the spouse, underage daughter, or wallet?
Anyone who can’t show they were reliable before they ran for office should not be voted for. Anyone who was a bum before they chose to feed from the public trough should be prevented from feeding from the public trough. We should see Public Service as a privilege, and only award it to those who are worthy of that honor.
Campaign contributions can not be used for anything that’s honorable. That money comes from sources who want something in return. If the candidate or the organization makes an attempt to hide the contribution, then that’s a big red flag and a deal breaker. Both the candidate and the organization should be made to wear a big red W on their foreheads to make sure even the less swift among us can identify the whores who live among us.
To campaign effectively it doesn’t take very much money. Stand in front of the local news and let them ask you questions, answer them honestly and then your message gets out. Open your life history to them and let the media talk to your former business associates talk to your neighbors. Your honesty will count for something. Character counts. If you have something to hide from your past admit it and see if the public will forgive it. Buying time on TV or Radio to get your message out is not an honorable way to run a campaign. Why are you putting lipstick on this pig?
In my fantasy world political campaigns would consist of a list of accomplishments put together by an impartial third party and a series of questions that the candidate answers yes or no to. There should also be a statement of intent detailing how the candidate intends to represent the public; their beliefs and their intentions once in office. No debates, no ads, no public appearances just a background check and yes and no questions. The last part of my fantasy is the recall button. Once the elected official violates the statement of intent given to the electorate a recall election can be held within the month. Violations of integrity or a drift from the loyalty to your employers, the voters who put you in office, should initiate a mechanism to jerk the jerk from office.
It’s a nice fantasy, and I know it would provide better public servants, but are we ready for that sort of commitment? Are we ready to build accountability into public service?
Vote the Bums Out,