From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 14 Sep 1992 04:52:24 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <POLITICS%92091316153846@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T) writes:
> So that Andrew MacRae knows that POLITICS is exactly where
> he left it (in a general sense of way) let me say a word
> or so about term limits and also welcome Andy MacRae back.

Thank you, Kaveh, it's nice to be back.  (Though you guys didn't *really*
have to stay on the same subjects the entire time I was gone!)


As you may recall, trying to find ways to level the playing field when
someone challenges a long time incumbant is of interest to me.  Last spring
I suggested that a total ban on paid political advertisements might go a
long way toward reducing the overall dollar amounts that are needed
to mount a successful compaign.  This suggestion generated a few
responses, including (unexpectedly) some from people who actually *liked*
sound byte commercials and thought that they brought value to a campaign!
(Oh well, there's no accounting for taste.)


In the last few months I have become involved to one degree or another
with several campaigns for various offices (school board up to US President).
In addition, like the rest of you, I have been watching contests all over
the country.  Here are some observations...

In Pennsylvania, a political neophyte is giving an incumbant Senator (Spector)
a real run for his money.  She (I don't remember her name) came out of
nowhere, inspired to run by Spector's performance during the Thomas
hearings of a year ago.  She managed to win the primary despite almost no
backing ($).

Here in the bay area, my local congresscritter is a 20 some year veteren
who is known as the drug company's best friend.  He is a Democrat and chairs
some committee (or perhaps sub-committee) that is key to legislation in that
industry.  This year he has received over $500,000 in PAC contributions from
said companies for his re-election bid.

His opponent is a political newcomer.  He is the executive director of a
non-profit youth ranch program for troubled teens (which he founded).  I
don't know how much the program pays him, but so far no one has accused him
of living high.  To date, he has received $18,000 for his bid to unseat the
current incumbant.

Now, it turns out that the incumbant plans to spend only about $75,000 for
ads on tv, radio, and print.  A few thousand more will go for the various
signs, posters, etc that one uses in a campaign.  So, where does the rest
of the booty go?

Well, aside from the money that pays for his Mercedes (it's considered to
be a legitimate campaign expense), the rest of the money goes to various
local political groups to fund *their* campaigns.  Naturally, these groups
all have endorsed him.  Now, I have nothing against the Sierra Club or
Planned Parenthood, two of the groups to whom he has 'donated' money, but
the way in which this is all handled bothers me.

In effect, we have a system, where unless the incumbant does something
frightfully upsetting to enough people, there is just about no chance to
remove them.  And limiting the amount of money that a particular candidate
spends on his or her own re-election, doesn't even begin to address the
problem.

Ah well, it's late and I still have some work to do.

						Andrew MacRae
						
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics