In a message dated 7/20/02 2:54:32 PM GMT Daylight Time, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
writes:
> SQUONK:
> ...and i hear Nader has won enough votes in recent elections to receive the
> same amount of Government funds for campaigning next time around?
> If Nader had access to the magnitude of funds Bush's corrupt corporate
> buisness chums throw at him i would have thought the political climate in
> the US would be on an altogether more intellectual level?
>
> ROG:
> Are you alleging that corporations gave money to Bush's campaign? Or just
> employees of corporations? Are these employees more or less corrupt than
> Nader and Gore's environmentalist, teacher union and trial bar chums?
>
> Most importantly though, how does a request for minimal government lead to
> your suggestion that the government subsidize campaign financing? Don't you
> see a contradiction?
>
>
> Rog
Hi Rog,
The US federation has a political system dominated by media and $$$$.
If a prospective candidate does not hold a cut of % of votes he/she is denied
access to media.
Thus, politics becomes a struggle between opposing mediated texts.
In these circumstances, it may be argued, candidates will not get anywhere
without the kind of 'friends' you indicate?
Reliance upon media is a social pattern of value and far from intellectual.
However, if media were open and not dependent upon friends, like if the US
had a sophisticated BBS then there would be freer debate and transparency of
motive?
(And less need for government or private campaign funds?)
You are not recognising that government funding attempts to provide a poor
solution to a dreadful problem. But its something closer to supporting
intellectual patterns over social ones.
Squonk.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:27 BST