A O U





Election Reform Thoughts


The Following is an unprinted letter to the Times


Editor
New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 07015
November 7, 1990
To the Editor;

The election is now over with pretty much predictable results. Not the least of those will be the loser's plaint "He bought the election, I couldn't compete with his war-chest (or PAC money or .....) to get TV/radio time to..." or variations thereof. While maybe not entirely true there is generally enough validity for honest discussion.

A relatively simple way to eliminate that disparity would be to require each campaign ad placed on public air ways to have equal time immediately adjacent to it made available the opponent(s) at no charge. For example, if the incumbent (or challenger) were to purchase a 30 second spot in prime time, then a 30 second spot would be made available to the opponent(s) at the same time at no charge for air time.

Such a law would probably make air time more expensive, but effectively limit one sided presentations and serve the public interest by providing a more balanced contest. Would anyone care to quote odds on the chance of an incumbent congress passing one?


Another thought.

How do you think it would work if we limited campaign contributions to individuals within the sending district of the office seeker. No companies and no PACS, just individuals. We are now having a Senate race here in New Jersey. One candidate was on the front page of a local paper shown returning from a fund raising trip across the country. Just what in the hell anyone in California or Kansas is doing contributing to a candidate from New Jersey for is beyond me (it isn't really but what else can I say?). It's an egregious and arrogant intrusion on local interests when anyone outside the sending district seeks to affect the outcome of an election, whether it's a local councilman or the President. Look at the furor raised when the press reported that a foreign power (Iran?) offered a billion to Farakhan to spend on US elections.

The true facts of the matter are when you get right down to it, our election system has devolved into the most corrupt in the world. Money equals access. Many foreigners consider Washington the most corrupt capital in the world. And who's to say they're wrong? Can anyone tell me the difference between handing $20 to a border guard to overlook a pound of Maryjane; and a company or country handing $1,000,000 to a lobbying firm to effect a change in legislation or regulatory ruling. The only marvel is that our government(s) work at all.


End of Election Reforms



I would very much appreciate it if you would take a few seconds to rate this page. Just click the appropriate button.
("Excellent" is pre-selected for you ( grin))."

Excellent - Well worth my time.
Pretty Good - Worth reading.
Just Okay - Not especially exciting.
Not so Hot - Would sooner be trimming my toenails.
Bleech.... - Complete Waste of Time.
Other Comments
(Note - This format is anonymous.
If you want a reply, you'll have to send an Email.)

If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them promptly if you send me an email. Thanks for stopping by.
Gösta


I'm interested to hear what you have to say. Email me at: gosta@exit109.com


A O U main page

This document is Copyrighted by G. H. Lovgren. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part without this copyright notice.
This page was created by Gösta H. Lovgren using HTML and Word 7.