TechnoGuyRob
09-27-2007, 10:59 PM
...virally gaining support from media such as the internet, like he is right now?
I was looking at the Wikipedia page about his political positions and this really caught my eye.
Campaign contributions
In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice. He based his argument on the First Amendment, Separation of Powers, and Constitutional Authority, and the belief that such efforts are also counterproductive in reducing entrenched powers.
Notice, though, how most of the Romney/Clinton (and maybe Obama) donators contribute $2,300. If they can give that much, it suggests they could give more; maybe much more. However, it's also this $2,300 limit that prevents these rich donors from completely overshadowing people like us that work hard to donate dollar by dollar. One $100,000 donation (which surely some of the pro-Clinton rich lawyer folk can muster) would be almost 20% of what we've gotten Ron so far in this quarter's end drive.
What do you think?
EDIT: the belief that such efforts are also counterproductive in reducing entrenched powers. - My common sense (and things like this drive) seem to suggest otherwise...am I wrong?
I was looking at the Wikipedia page about his political positions and this really caught my eye.
Campaign contributions
In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice. He based his argument on the First Amendment, Separation of Powers, and Constitutional Authority, and the belief that such efforts are also counterproductive in reducing entrenched powers.
Notice, though, how most of the Romney/Clinton (and maybe Obama) donators contribute $2,300. If they can give that much, it suggests they could give more; maybe much more. However, it's also this $2,300 limit that prevents these rich donors from completely overshadowing people like us that work hard to donate dollar by dollar. One $100,000 donation (which surely some of the pro-Clinton rich lawyer folk can muster) would be almost 20% of what we've gotten Ron so far in this quarter's end drive.
What do you think?
EDIT: the belief that such efforts are also counterproductive in reducing entrenched powers. - My common sense (and things like this drive) seem to suggest otherwise...am I wrong?