| Author | Post |
|---|
mstone
Member
| Joined: | Apr 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | Oak Ridge, USA |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Nov 14th, 2006 09:21 pm |
|
Good point, Sandra. Those positions that pay little or no money would need a slight variance in the policy. That's more public servant than a political figure. I'm OK with picking a reasonable amount for this type of thing. Let's say $1500. At least all candidates for this office would still be on the same even playing field and you wouldn't price anyone out of running.
Even on local positions, you have to wonder why someone would spend 5 or 10 grand on an election that pays a hundred dollars a month. I guess my point is that some people (local, state, and especially federal) spend 10X more money for elections than what they earn for the position. It's gotta be a power thing when you spend a half million dollars on a campaign that pays less than that for the entire term.
|
Waytago
Member
| Joined: | Jan 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 175 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 17th, 2006 12:54 am |
|
mstone wrote: Even on local positions, you have to wonder why someone would spend 5 or 10 grand on an election that pays a hundred dollars a month. I guess my point is that some people (local, state, and especially federal) spend 10X more money for elections than what they earn for the position. It's gotta be a power thing when you spend a half million dollars on a campaign that pays less than that for the entire term.
Your final statement says it all.
It's not the paycheck of the job, it's the power rush that goes along with it.
|
mstone
Member
| Joined: | Apr 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | Oak Ridge, USA |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 17th, 2006 02:48 pm |
|
The problem with the "power rush" is that you'd think that someone that virtually buys their elected office position must have some grand master plan or vision for the area. I'm thinking eliminating hunger or maybe world peace. Most of these people have no orignial ideas and nothing to offer that says "Here's how to fix this problem." Unless you believe that the only way you can contribute to your community is to be an elected official (how short-sighted is that) why else would you buy a position.
For the life of me I can't see it. Not a single candidate that spends this sort of cash in a local election comes into the position with any ideas or plans that would justify the means taken. If they have such grand ideas, let's hear them. There are multitudes of unelected, regular folks that make a larger impact on their communities every day by effort and volunteerism. These folks want a better community and understand service over being served. These are the folks that we should encourage to serve as our elected officials.
Of course, such financial antics could explain a lot. People that will spend all that money on an election obviously believe that throwing money at anything will fix it - hence taxes, bond debt, and bigger government.
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Nov 19th, 2006 12:31 pm |
|
I agree with most of what you've said about the power trip, especially if a candidate is spending their own money, which some do. But a lot of times, they're spending other people's money.
People are often more than willing to make political contributions for various reasons. For instance, I know that people within the same party are very likely to make a contribution. If you're a Democratic candidate for county commissioner, other Democrats on the board might contribute to help get you elected, ensuring or at least hoping for a majority of like-minded Democrats on the board. Other Democrats in other positions that a candidate might know (DA, clerk of court, senator, representative, etc.) could also make contributions. In turn, they might hope you'd return the favor of either influence or money when their time for re-election comes up. The party system is definitely alive and well, even in the local scene and even in non-partisan elections.
People also make contributions if they are perhaps hoping for favor in the future. For example, people in the building and development industry often make contributions in the hope that the candidate, if elected, would act favorably toward them in the future. I'm not saying they are buying votes, although it might be seen that way.
I know one local elected official, who only makes about $200 per month, has come under criticism by some because he allowed a developer to pay for his political signs at election time at a cost of about $1,500. Does this mean he's sold his vote? I certainly hope not. In fact, he did absolutely nothing illegal and reported the contribution as required. But some in his community have chrged that he's pro-development and giving this developer preferential treatment.
|
Current time is 02:44 pm | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|