Wilson, Sowards talk about money in politics

Comments

  1. Michael H Schneider says:

    Ms. Wilson’s statement is so vague that I as a voter have no idea what she opposes or supports when it comes to campaign finance law reform.
     
    Very true, but despite her vagueness she managed to contradict herself.
     
    She says “I think sunlight is a great disinfectant…” That suggests that she believes that voters should have more information about candidates.  Yet when asked to throw some light on her positions, when asked specific questions, she doesn’t get anywhere near actually answering the questions. So she believes that sunlight is good, but she keeps voters in the dark about her positions. 
     
    Unlike Ms Wilson, Mr Soward answered the questions. You may or may not like his positions, but at least he has positions he isn’t trying to hide. I’d give him the points for honesty.

  2. Astute Observer says:

    Sowards has become a politician – he is way to wordy.

  3. Mike Goodenow says:

    Ms. Wilson’s statement is so vague that I as a voter have no idea what she opposes or supports when it comes to campaign finance law reform.

    The position and statements of Mr. Sowards strikes me as absurd.   
      
    “To assume that money spent on elections is the cause of our problems in Washington is a stretch.”

    Are you kidding us, Mr. Sowards?   Of course our system of legalized bribery of our elected leaders is a big problem.   
        
    “If we, the American people, have become gullible to the point where 30-second sound bites take the place of thorough candidate research, then we probably have the government we deserve, or soon will have.”

    Uh-huh.  The problem is the voters.  Sure.   

    “Big-money investments in getting favorable politicians elected would lose appeal if the purchased politicians were termed out after a short but reasonable length of time. Problem solved!”

    So simplistic, Mr. Sowards.  First of all, things have not been cleaned up in states with term limits for state legislators.  Second, it just gives staff more power cuz the new legislators take time to figure out what they are doing.  Third, we still just have one round of “purchased politicians” after another.  Fine, says Mr. Sowards, they are corrupt but they won’t be in there long.  They’ll all still be corrupt but they’ll revolve in and out faster.   

    “If politicians are dishonest, regulations are not going to keep them honest.”

    Of course the rules make a difference, Mr. Sowards.  If you can’t take $100,000 from an industry you are supposed to be overseeing, you will do a better job overseeing that industry. whether it is Wall Street banks or mortgage lenders (where the Great Recession was caused by lack of oversight which was purchased by campaign cash) or whether it is oil companies in the Gulf or whether it is Defense contractors.  Are you aware of Congress’s oversight role, Mr. Sowards?  
    “Again: Limit the time politicians can stay in office and you will limit the amount of money that will be spent to keep them there.”

    Untrue, Mr. Sowards.  Term limits may solve other problems, like slowing down generational change and the arrival of new ideas, but term limits will not clean up the ethics of Congress nor restore the independence and integrity of our public leaders.  For that we need to change our campaign finance and lobbying laws and rules — and enforce them.