(08-30-2023, 04:45 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(08-30-2023, 03:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: It's really simple.

It costs a lot of money to run a successful campaign of deceitful propaganda. 
In that regard - yes - we've always been in a mess. 

I am in favor of making it harder for candidates to achieve misleading the American public through disinformation. 
You are fine with it, apparently.

I am aware that campaigning is very expensive.  
But it's just as expensive to run a very honest, very positive campaign as it is to run a very deceitful very negative one.  The best case scenario is we have two candidates who are being as positive and honest as possible, but, if one fails to raise and spend enough money to get enough name recognition and credibility, that candidate will lose.

That said, I do believe we can slow down and reduce the flow of money to candidates.  It's not a bad idea to have spending limits and disclosure requirements.  But attempts to go beyond that probably will be unenforceable. And it will never be the magic bullet to clean things up, so to speak.

I agree with both of you here, but I think we all know this goes well beyond campaign money, too.  Money is funneled to these politicians families even after they're campaign is over via "business deals" or high paying "jobs" (think Kushner and Hunter B.) and I'm sure the other side of that deal is in the form of favoritism in legislation, etc.  We all know this, and there's nothing we can do about it.

---