Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Here's a thought ... Let's stop funding campaigns

Seriously. Why is it at my tax dollars are used to fund someone else campaign? Maybe I support them, and maybe I don't so why do my tax dollars go to fund their campaigns?

This is not like being asked to pay taxes for something that I don't like but probably actually benefits me (like IRS agents or social security programs). This money is going to a private citizen so that he can for an office.

How is it in the public interest for the government to fund someones campaign? It's like it is propping a losing side, since if the candidate was popular enough, then they would be able to get donations from their constituents.

Why is this bugging me so much? Well a while ago I got spammed by the Dewitt Lacey campaign. Apparently, Mr. Lacey is running for Supervisor for district 10 here in San Framcisco. Now I do not know Mr.Lacey, and have no idea where the district is that the hopes to represent (hell barely know which district I live in). Furthermore, I am pretty sure that I did not ask to be put on his spam lit, bit there it was this afternoon in my inbox.

Anyhooo... In his email, along with trumpeting that he had been endorsed by SEIU, which I presume means he is a Democrat because I haven eve heard of a Republican being endorsed by SEIU, he crowed about how he finally qualified for San Francisco's campaign financing program. Not only that, but if I wereto give so much, then the City would match it 4 to 1.

Are you kidding me? The City runs in the red. We've goat litany of needed programs that are screaming for money, but we're going to finance someone's run for Supervisor.

We need to end this nonsense. You want to run for office, you pay your own way. Stop having my tax money go toyour campaign.your going to steal enough from me when you get to office anyways.


Rich said...

Aren't these campaign financing laws intended to balance things out so that rich folks with deep pockets that can pay for their own campaign aren't the only people that can run?

AngryBell said...

That's an argument for it. But the again, the system that we live under mandates that there are going to be only two parties. Those parties have machines and professional fundraisers who essentially eliminate the need for the publics money.

Why should I as a tax payer be forced to pay for someone else's message. I'd rather my money go to pay for something that directly benefits the public and not someones self aggrandizement. I'm sorry but that's the way I feel about politicos right now, especially in San Framcisco where the city government refuses go make the hard choices, preferring instead to hope that a paladin will appear to save them from having to do something that might involve someone having to take less.