Slashdot Mirror
Politicians For Sale... On Amazon
aldheorte writes "In either a brilliant move or a sick commentary on politics (or both), Amazon is now selling U.S. Presidential candidates, or at least contributions to such."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Amazon takes a cut of these payments. You'd be better off giving directly to the campaigns.
All I see is Libertarian, Republican and Democrat. Where are the other parties? Green? Socialist Workers? Communist? Or any of those lesser-known parties on the right that I'm not familiar with but know are there because of their stench?
It seems a shame to create a potentially "democratic" contribution system like this wherein all the candidates appear side by side, yet return in the end to the flawed two-party (or at most three-party) set of limited choices...
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Yep. Wonder how they'll use these donations to shape their book picks.
:)
Then again, I wonder what they'd do if someone donated $5 to each candidate.
Be as cynical as you like, we all know it takes money to run for any public office. Amazon has put up a page with all the candidates, many of which I have never heard of, and it has a little biography and overview of their politics. From there you can donate a small amount of cash, $200 or less.
Maybe this will help educate some people on the lesser known candidates and help even the playing field a tiny bit for those candidates who don't have a lot of cash.
You have got to be kidding! Greens, Socialist Workers and Communist are ANTI-CAPITALISTS! Signing up with the biggest online capitalist tool would be make them look silly and go completely against their political beliefs.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Thomas Edison educated himself by reading, Abraham Lincoln educated himself by reading, many other famous americans educated themselves. Just because you never went to school doesnt preclude you from being smart.
yeah, i don't see the down side for this. the site basically says it's for small (below $200) donations, which isn't going to buy you ANY influence. it just makes it easier for normal people to give candidates money.
people should save their cynicism for corporate/special interest soft money and lobbying (you know, the things that ACTUALLY buy off candidates). really, if candidates got all enough money through small, distributed, contributions then they wouldn't have to sell themselves to bigger contributers who could want favors in return.
you know, since campaign funds translate into votes (funds buying ads and all), this is pretty close to an internet voting system --plus it's got more security to it than any of the real electronic voting systems i've read about.
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
Ah, but what if he's getting payed to be the former governor of Vermont?
KFG
You exagerate, or you are confusing LaRouche with Charles Manson. LaRouche was jailed for 15 years for fraud and tax evasion in 1988. He has been out on parole since 1993. I guess that the sentence probably expired completely last year (parole can extend longer than the original sentence).
Amazon don't state the basis that they used to compile the list of candidates. Each election there are a couple of thousand people who file for president, so there has to be a cut-off at some point. Probably sending reports to the SEC.
Its interesting the way that folk imediately translate dollars into votes. The fact that someone gives money to a campaign does not even mean they want them to be elected. Plenty of candidates in primaries get dollars from the other party, say there is a guy standing for re-election, folk will send dollars to a challenger in the primaries to help make it a rougher ride. I met a Democrat who freely admitted that 80% of his campaign dollars came from Republicans.
The big issue in this campaign has been whether the Democrats would run the type of pusilanimous campaign that Gephart ran with in the mid-sessionals. Under that strategy the party would nominate 'Bush-Lite' - Lieberman or Gephart, someone who would not criticize the invasion of Iraq, someone who would basically roll over when the GOP press did their smear campaign.
At this point Dean has made sure that whoever gets the nomination it will not be Gephart or Lieberman. Bush is going to be criticized on his record. Unfortunally for the poor Deaniacs they are now dispensible. We know full well that they will organize and vote for any Democrat candidate against Bush, except Lieberman that is.
At this point I don't think anyone can say with confidence who the winner of the nomination will be. I think Kerry, Clark and Edwards all have a chance, Dean might recover. One thing I am sure of is that Edwards is the most likely choice for Veep. I don't think Clark or Kerry would even want it - Clark would almost certainly prefer Secretary of State. But Edwards is one heck of a smooth speaker, unfortunately the poor chump does not really have enough of a Resume to run. Last time that a guy with as little experience as he did became President was 2000 - and the results show it.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
You exagerate, or you are confusing LaRouche with Charles Manson.
From what I've read about LaRouche, the idea of him as president is almost as scary as Manson as president. The guy is completely apeshit. I've seen a lot of his cultists around the Bay area; until I moved here, I thought he was pretty much defunct.
Under that strategy the party would nominate 'Bush-Lite'
Careful there. Ignoring the war issue for a moment (although there were many liberals who supported it, at least in principle, Clinton being the best example), this sounds a lot like an echo of Ralph Nader's preposterous claim in 2000 that there was no substantive difference between the Dems and the GOP. We've all seen how well that prediction turned out, havent' we? Ralph was just bitter because moderate neoliberal Democrats like Clinton didn't share his antipathy towards capitalism.
At any rate, either of those candidates would have been capable of criticizing Bush on his record - and might have been better insulated against the inevitable RNC smear that they don't care about national security. (Note: I don't think this is a good reason for them to be president, however, nor do I support either candidate, although Lieberman's politics are closest to mine.) Personally, I would like to see a Democrat attack Bush from the right, and point out that we haven't yet captured bin Laden (but started another war anyway), he's ramped up the deficits, and the size of government (and spending) has actually expanded under Republican rule.
If we end the Electoral College candidates will only campaign in the biggest states with the biggest cities and nowhere else. They would only serve those constituents and their interests, not the interests of the country as a whole. One could easily win by campaigning in New York, Texas, California and Illinois. Attempts to end the Electoral College are unwise and misguided.
STOP ROCK VIDEO