News-Record.com

"I'm not implying some sinister motivation on the part of donors. Maybe some expect some sort of quid pro quo, but most likely believe in the power of local government, guided by the right people, to make Greensboro a better city. Besides voting, supporting candidates with campaign contributions is how they choose to participate in the democratic process. As long as everyone follows the rules, they're perfectly entitled. In fact, more people ought to do the same."

Yeah right! /Sarcasm off.

"The only problem with campaign spending by the candidates is that it still won't draw more than maybe 20 percent of registered voters to the polls. I guess no amount of money can make people care about a local election if they just don't want to."

I think the truth is closer to the poor and working class have lost faith in the system with the big money being the biggest reason they've lost faith.

Then why do more people vote in state and national elections, where more money is spent and individual votes matter less?

The voters should always understand that the media in America is privately owned and in the business of making money. I agree in the private enterprise system and of the media's right to sell political advertisements. However, we need to find a medium for the expression of governmental policy that will encourage voter participation in the electoral process either by being a candidate or being an educated voter that is not based on one's ability to raise money. I understand the power of "name recognition" as well as the imprtance of an educated and informed voter. I offer the following:

Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Sidney C. Gray's proposal for candidate and voter participation in elections

There are many creative people who should become political candidates but are hesitant to participate in the political process because of the monetary costs associated with a campaign. The citizen/voter should have access to the candidates' views on the issues so that an informed, intelligent and thoughtful decision can be made as to which candidate the voter supports.

I propose the following: Each candidate for political office can present a position paper to the correct City Department for free duplication. The City will make these position papers available without cost to its citizens in our libraries, parks and recreation departments as well as any City owned facility. The City of Greensboro will provide the position papers to our private and public media outlets for insertion and distribution in their publication at no charge to the candidate.

Sidney,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Here's the problem I would have: objectionable material.

What happens if, say, a Ku Klux Klan candidate presents a racist diatribe to the city for distribution to the public?

Lots of protest.

Would the city be obligated to distribute objectionable material? Would private media be required - by ordinance - to carry it?

A publication certainly could not be required to print or distribute any material. The First Amendment guards against such requirement.

I say that even though the N&R has provided opportunities for the candidates to convey their messages, through our Web site. Candidates' questionaires are online, as are the video statements that were offered to all those on tomorrow's ballot (except the mayoral candidates, who are featured in a lengthy video debate).

However, if any content were deemed objectionable, we would have the right to refuse to carry it.

I really don't think our current system is failing the candidates, some of whom did well in the primary despite running for the first time and spending little money - for examples: Bill Knight, Marikay Abuzuaiter, Tonya Clinkscale and Joe Wilson. Even if none wins tomorrow, they would have gained enough name recognition and credibility to make a better run next time if they want. The second time around, they also could draw more in campaign contributions.

As an alternative, you could explore public funding of city council campaigns, as Chapel Hill is doing this year. But I'm not sure taxpayers would favor that. Most don't even want to vote, let alone pay for candidates to run.

As an alternative, you could explore public funding of city council campaigns, as Chapel Hill is doing this year.* Doug

Explore? One should shoot the sucker [ public funding] on the spot as a political animal searching for another free welfare lunch at taxpayers expense.

Okay Doug! Would you feel political warm and fuzzy that you were force to give to Hillary and John Edwards campaigns by the so-call legal gunpoint of the State? In the old days Thomas Jefferson call this method "thief by government." Has the morals and sound principles of the [ Constitution] that made this nation great, falled so far that the scales of injustice public funding is now consider socialism at it's best for the "common good" for progressive establishment politics.

"and that voters aren't so paranoid that they see every contribution as a bribe".* Ed Cone local blog campaign consultant Wiz

I would hope the voters would go over a campaign contribution with a fine tooth Cone to find all of that special interests and lobbying money and highlite it in Big Red Letters as a unoffical bribe in a used white straight jacket.

In short, campaign consultant wiz Cone is saying that one shouldn't consider Jack Abramsoff or Jim Black recent corrupted Republican and Democrat campaign contibutions as a sign of paranoid.

No, I do not favor tax funding for political campaigns.

I notice campaign web consultant Ed Cone is yet to say one thing about the most amazing internet campaign in this nation history. Surely he is up to speed on campaign funding like you Doug? I had no idea that Ed was into such deep, deep blogging political establishment denial.

" Remember the 5 th of November" * Guy Fawkes

Today, Nov. 5, marks not only Paul's best fundraising haul in a single day -- more than $2.5 million by 6 p.m. EST -- but online observers say it's also the most money raised by a candidate on the Web in a single day. And the day's not over yet. "Damn. Wow. Um, that's pretty awesome," said a stunned Jerome Armstrong who served as Howard Dean's online strategist. Armstrong, the founder of the popular blog MyDD, said Dean raised as much as $700,000 in one day toward the end of the primary race. "But not a million," Armstrong added. "What Paul is doing -- or what his supporters are doing -- is really impressive." You can view all the fundraising data here.

No, I do not favor tax funding for political campaigns.* Doug

Good for you! Now write something why you oppose it and sent it on it's evil way to the Democrat establisment Temple of Doom.

And don't let Ed's apples and Eve oranges amazing new age democrat establishment math and political myths confuse you

Ron Paul raised a lot of money today. More, according to his website, "than any Republican has ever raised online in one day."

Atrios: "This is a phenomenon I do not understand, but it isn't getting nearly as much news coverage as it deserves."

David All: "[T]his is the Revolution I've been talking about."

Nov 05, 2007 at 06:36 PM and finally by Ed

Whew! For a minute I thought Ed was going for a shut out....But Ed you fib again....pay attention "than any Republican has ever raised online in one day."

But! But Ed! Why did you leave Democrat out? It a record Baby and chances it might go to 4 m by tonight..

Doug said:
"Then why do more people vote in state and national elections, where more money is spent and individual votes matter less?"

Too easy. We have big political parties that spend vast resources getting people to the polls is the reason turnouts are larger for national elections but even then turnouts are woefully small. Worldwide, in countries with actual voting almost all of them have much higher voter rates than in the USA. The poor and working class of America have lost faith in a system that is rapidly destroying the middle class and low voter turnouts prove they've lost faith.

Doug: You offer a strong case against my proposal.
"Objectionable material" - It probably would occur very infrequently but the new ideas, debate and interest that a person of limited financial means could offer our community would far outweigh the occasional KKK type person. Do we as a country not promote Democracy around the world because it might backfire and establish a Hamas regime?
Since a publication is privately owned then there is no requirement that "objectionable material" be published. However, this works two ways in that who determines if the publication is fair and honest and without agenda? Freedom of the press is a Constitutional guarantee as we both know but yet those publications can use "private ownership" to deny, edit and choose what they feel is "newsworthy". It happened to me when I wrote a letter concerning the ballpark being located at South Elm and Lee.
My proposal is limited in scope to a position paper to encourage political participation making people feel a part of the process and reverse the attitude we now experience in getting people to care enough to just go out and vote.