Can Banning Donations And Having The Gov't Give Equal Press Time To Presidential Candidates Make It More Fair?
I mean these days you have to be really rich to become president. You need money for staff and TV ads and all. It is known that a person who does not "campaign" in a state is much less likely to win than a person who campaigned there a lot. So like if that person didn't have the money to campaign everywhere heavily such as purchase ads and hire staff and leaders, then they cannot make a big influence another candidate can.
I think its utter nonsense. Big companies and corporations can just make deals with presidential candidates and donate huge sums of money to that person. Then that person will purchase himself/herself a lot of TV ads and get as much awareness and influence to the people as much as possible. Does this make sense? I mean if you think about it, you really do "buy" the election. Obama, McCain, and Hillary by themselves spent much more money than any other candidate. They also received a lot of money from corporations and lobbyists. Look it up on google. Its all there.
People say Obama won the election fairly. But really did he? He received a lot of money. Therefore he made a lot of ads. Therefore he had a huge awareness. Had he not had those ads and press time, would he even have the Democratic Nomination? I highly doubt it. Same with Clinton and McCain. For you see, if a candidate is not given press time, they are not shown, and the people think they do not exist.
We had Ron Paul in this election. He was WINNING in all the straw polls, debates, internet videos, popularity all the time. Then the media stopped giving him attention, and he began to lose! Then the huge media spike started up with Clinton, Obama, and McCain and they began to pick themselves up when they should have been losing all along. Ever heard of Liberal Media? Conservative Media? We hear bias all the time. The media is owned by Big Corporations. Few Corporations. And they pick out a Candidate to give press time. When Ross Perot was allowed to participate in the debates in 1992 he got 20% of the vote. When he wasn't allowed to participate in the debates in 1996, he got only 8% of the votes. Time and time again it is shown that the Media sways Public Opinion. Even Kerry was losing badly in the IOWA polling weeks prior to the primary. Then he started using Clinton's technique of airing many ads in the state. In the end he won by a landslide when he should have lost by a landslide!
Want an example? Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg
Wounded Duck- Did you think about this enough? Sounds like you never heard about this. Also did you watch the video? If you haven't, watch it fully and carefully. What you are saying is wrong. Watch it and admit it. Be smart. There is the truth there.
Angela Q- Not Fairness Doctrine. More like laws concerning presidency and media time.
margie k.- I am not sure I agree. Look at Obama's Contributions:
University of California $1,123,898
Goldman Sachs $955,223
Microsoft Corp $791,342
Google Inc $782,964
Harvard University $779,460
JPMorgan Chase & Co $642,958
Citigroup Inc $633,418
Sidley Austin LLP $565,788
Stanford University $558,184
Time Warner $542,651
National Amusements Inc $536,235
Wilmerhale Llp $522,792
Skadden, Arps et al $505,074
UBS AG $505,017
Columbia University $502,866
IBM Corp $489,842
Morgan Stanley $483,523
US Government $477,506
University of Chicago $456,209
Latham & Watkins $454,599
Big big business involved. Perhaps those companies bought off their employees to each donate the most they can to Barack Obama? How could he receive so much from such big business? Other than Obama, McCain, and Hillary, no one else received any money from big business, far less so much. What is this?
Of course I meant that on good terms since you were repsective.
TO THOSE WHO ARE IN DOUBT OF THIS IDEA; READ MY PLANS:
They're absolutely flawless. And if there is a flaw, which would then be small, please tell. I will improvise it even more.
Capitalized for emphasize
I strongly agree with Levon here; most of the people here drink too much Kool Aid. They don't wanna learn the truth. Well I do. I choose to believe in reality.
- L.T.M.Lv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
I know this is one thing we have to be Very careful with! The solutions can be worse than the problem. Look at the camp. finance reform we've had so far..like I said, worse than the original. The following link is for lame duck who obviously doesn't have a CLUE!
Also margie k...keep drinking that kool aide, look at this link and then say there's no Proof!
Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were "programmed" by a very sophisticated user.
While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers.
The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries.
One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia.
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.
- Wounded DuckLv 71 decade ago
You have GOT to be kidding me. After all the ACORN accusations, and the intense scrutiny President Obama's campaign, in general, received from the Republican Party, not a single charge has been made. Not one campaign contribution that was questionable was not returned. Not a single cent has been attributed to any overseas donors. What you have stated is an flat out LIE.
As far as the campaign laws stand, McCain and Obama had the OPTION of taking government funding. Obama made the wiser decision. He had far more people willing to donate to his campaign. That is usually the case with the winner. What you are suggesting is ludicrous. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
- margie kLv 71 decade ago
Equal FREE time to ALL candidates who wish to run for the presidency should be given on television and radio. It should be part of their license requirements. As far as the contributions, your information about Obama is incorrect and in fact, a lie. You are pretty bright, don't mess it up with that nonsense. I agree with one answer that time limits should be set on campaigns though. And by the way, big companies etc. cannot just give huge amounts of money to campaigns, it is already limited. What is so amazing about Obama's campaign is the sheer number of SMALL donations by a huge amount of regular working Americans who believed in him and still do. The Repubs couldn't stand this fact and so investigated - and found nothing wrong. Sore losers.
- Angela QLv 71 decade ago
Equal press time is what the Fairness Doctrine was all about. You want that back?
I think they should cut back the length of the campaign, maybe 4 months for the primaries and 2 months for the general election. That would save a whole lot of money.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
If this were to happen and the government would force "equal time," how would the government decide which candidates get to have some of that time? Better yet, do we really want the government to decide who gets to say what when? That's kinda scary, if you ask me.
- wendy cLv 71 decade ago
Last time I looked, this was America, and the GOVT does not "give" press time to anyone. And they should not.
Just to help you understand..
Obama did not win the election on the basis of how much air time he bought. It was WHAT HE HAD TO SAY with the air time.
- Scottish DachsyLv 51 decade ago
Not really because then the government in power can determine who gets heard and who does not. Keep government out as much as possible.
- Edg1Lv 71 decade ago
Yes, I agree. Poor Mike Huckabee had to beg for airtime. I blame the Obama presidency on foreign money in combination to the media. most of his voters, when questioned. had no idea why they were voting for him other than the fact he was black and not Bush.
- ?Lv 41 decade ago
I suppose, but equal press time could only apply to tv and radio.