Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (134005)	3/28/2001 9:58:46 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Sorry, when I get into a rant, I get argumentative. I guess the thing that gets me is the inequity of the power of that money. In America today, we've seen that there IS a direct relationship between the amount of advertising and the resulting public opinion about that product. Advertising firms have gotten very clever and effective in delivering their message. So what if one company got so big that it dominated the market, and used its market share and resulting advertising clout to effectively quash all competition? Well, we'd invoke the antitrust laws, designed to protect small businesses from being crushed by these monopolies, to promote fair competition which is an eventual win for the consumer. So, why doesn't the same pertain to politics? There IS a monopoly; the two established political parties. They control most of the money and attention. Third parties can't get their foot into the door. They are held out of the debates, thus ensuring that they will not get the votes necessary to get federal funding in the next campaign. In addition, nearly all the advertising (which translates directly into mindshare) is done by these two parties. So, why not promote a little fair competition by limiting the amount of clout these parties possess? I still cannot believe that companies give the amount of money they do without expecting a little 'payback'. I believe politicians view this 'dirty little secret' as a necessary evil; after all, how could they serve their country if they aren't elected? After all, ALL of them do it, so don't the sins cancel each other out? One of the reasons I admired Jerry Brown was his insistence on taking contributions that were only from individuals, and only up to a certain size. But, then he couldn't get enough exposure to get the necessary traction. Same with Nader. Seems if you don't play the game, you aren't going very far. Btw: I think def 1a also applies: "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle". Seems rampant in DC...