stuart (09/27/82)
If the candidate you mention was able to "buy" the election, it was only because the voters were willing to "sell" their votes. No one has to decide their votes like they decide which soft drink to buy. Your dismay at the influence which money has in deciding an election is misplaced. It is not the spender who is to be frowned upon, but those who look no farther than TV ads to learn about a candidate, or whose political convictions are so weak as to be influenced by the mere sight of a politician's name plastered on someone's car or lawn or billboard. Stuart Hollander decvax!genradbolton!stuart
mes (09/27/82)
#R:pyuxbb:-24500:zeppo:9300003:000:1090
zeppo!mes Sep 27 12:11:00 1982
Yes, but Mr. Wetherell, I hasten to point out that even if Mr. Lehrman
"only" put up 50% of his own money, that's about $8.50 a vote, or three
and a half millon dollars! Oh, lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say
that he only put up a quarter of the money: that's 1.7 million dollars, folks!
Oh boy, what a constitutional field day one could have here! Certainly, the
constitution says that one has the right to spend one's money as one wishes,
as long as it falls within the realm of the legal, and there doesn't seem
to be any law against spending that much, now does there?
However, it would certainly appear that even the most brilliant political
theorist, the most accomplished statesman, the most worthy individual does
not have a snowballs chance *anywhere* if the incredible financial support
is not there... is that right?
Well, I'm not sure - all I know is that $3,500,000.00 is more money than
I will make in my entire lifetime, and he managed to get rid of it in less
than a year... phew!
If nothing else does, this'll provoke some comment!