Not picking sides on this but just pointing out issues of scale. The money spent on the 2004 Presidential election was something less that what the country spent that year on corn-chips. It could be argued the elections are the most positive thing the candidates do for the economy <g>
>Hello Mike,
>
>I do not have a source to confirm this at the moment, but I believe the US is way ahead in the spending game of any country. I believe most other countries have a much shorter election cycle. I am already tired of the political crap and the primaries are still a ways off. We need to have a much shorter political cycle, six months start to finish max, it would be harder to collect or spend hugh amounts of cash in that time frame. I bet this election will top $1Billion easy, starting to be real money.
>
>Bob
>
>>This is not just a U.S. thing, as I'm sure you also know. See Thomas's post about Germany. I was just reading an article about the recent French election; same thing there.
>>
>>The concept that every citizen has exactly equal say and influence is a nice one but that's all it is, a concept. A nice vision for Pollyannas. We have some reasonable safeguards in place to try to prevent the worst abuses, but money is always going to make itself heard. We couldn't keep it completely out of politics even if we wanted to.
Charles Hankey
Though a good deal is too strange to be believed, nothing is too strange to have happened.
- Thomas Hardy
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
-- T. S. Eliot
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
- Ben Franklin
Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
