Dear Editor,
Someone once said, “Bad government is better than no government”. The Bible says, paraphrasing, … “and everyman did that which was right in his own eyes”, so I BELIEVE THE FIRST QUOTE IS PROBABLY RIGHT. Running for a seat in congress in the state of South Carolina in 1990, applications were sent to me from three separate PACS, with a letter advising me to fill out the enclosed applications and send them in, if they liked what I said, I would be forwarded $5,000.00 for a total of $15,000.00!
The election process
If I would have accepted any of that money, whom would I be, beholden to, the public whom I am supposed to represent, or the PACS? I said all that not to boast, but to show one reason why we have bad government.
Our President has already “boasted” several times, he will be spending up to one billion dollars on his campaign. Millions have already been spent in the caucus’s by the other candidates and most is spent on throwing mud on their opponents.
All this comes to my point for this article: The average person could hardly afford to run for “dog catcher” any more.
Why can’t we rally enough people to put a cap on how much each candidate can spend, all the same of course from the Federal to the state and county and city governments.
Make it low enough so we can end up with a cross section of the population. Who knows we may get some logical thinkers in there instead of puppets looking for a place to retire! We may then see how each one manages his or her campaign and after that how they will manage our money.
Get rid of the PACS, the delegates, the earmarks AND WOW, WE MAY END UP WITH AN AMERICA WE ONCE KNEW!!!
Vern Gillem
Hazlehurst
Our President has already “boasted” several times, he will be spending up to one billion dollars on his campaign. Millions have already been spent in the caucus’s by the other candidates and most is spent on throwing mud on their opponents.
All this comes to my point for this article: The average person could hardly afford to run for “dog catcher” any more.
Why can’t we rally enough people to put a cap on how much each candidate can spend, all the same of course from the Federal to the state and county and city governments.
Make it low enough so we can end up with a cross section of the population. Who knows we may get some logical thinkers in there instead of puppets looking for a place to retire! We may then see how each one manages his or her campaign and after that how they will manage our money.
Get rid of the PACS, the delegates, the earmarks AND WOW, WE MAY END UP WITH AN AMERICA WE ONCE KNEW!!!
Vern Gillem
Hazlehurst
Besides, IF he were to spend that amount, it would only be because his supporters donated that amount. There is, in fact, a limit on how much individuals can donate. So if his campaign was to raise one billion, good for them. That's a lot of support. Any other candidate can raise that much as well if they have the support.
This isn't taxpayer money - it's donated money. Why should he not spend as much as he wants on his re-election campaign?
I, too, wish better candidates would run for office. To paraphrase one of my television icons, "[I pray] that people with power will get good sense, and that people with good sense will get power, and that the rest of us will be blessed with the patience and strength to survive in the meantime."