tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242693628378849302.post8604845114633051302..comments2011-07-08T13:03:42.327-05:00Comments on Political Argument: Campaign Finance ReformWayne BThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15343455979104443636noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242693628378849302.post-89734346291725062872007-03-02T23:04:00.000-05:002007-03-02T23:04:00.000-05:00Many times, especially in American politics where ...Many times, especially in American politics where “dark-house” candidates often do extremely well in elections, people don’t know much about the presidential candidates. The reforms and policies the candidates propose rarely correlate with what they pass once elected, and throughout their four (or more) years in office, they will be faced with many issues they haven’t dreamt of while campaigning. Thus, it’s unwise for people to judge candidates solely, or even mainly, on proposed policies. Without having to rely on policies, people need a way to distinguish between committed, hardworking, and serious candidates from wanna-bes. Money is the solution to this dilemma. It serves as the perfect signal to people, allowing them to distinguish between serious and not serious candidates. That’s not to say that money wins election. After a certain point, money becomes inconsequential. Once there are a few candidates who have demonstrated that they are serious by obtain a large sum of money, the people can decide whomever of the candidates they like the most, based on personality and other factors. After all, President Bush spent less than Senator Kerry on the 2004 election and won.Champ!https://www.blogger.com/profile/05393209186513905152noreply@blogger.com