Do you support any kind of special interest money in campaigns?

The recent attacks on Kerry about special interest money are perplexing to me. First off, if a labor union endorses and supports with money that is special interest money. We can count almost all the camps in on some of that. Some other examples, if a lobbyist for a pro-choice organization, say NARAL, sends 2000 in personal cash that would also be considered special interest. What about environmental groups, if Al Gore, or Howard Dean, or John Kerry accepted money from an environmental lobbyist... would that be bad? Seriously, if you combine ALL of the candidate spec. interest contributions, they still don't equal what Bush has brought in with energy, defense, corporate, anti-abortion, ultra-fundamentalists, etc. etc.

So, I have a question. Answer the poll below.

Not including the 4th quarter. I know he took money from AIPAC. Is that who you're referring to?

w/kerry taking money from PNAC when he took money from AIPAC whose views mirror the likudniks in PNAC

and votes to auction off our airwaves.

Just taking the money would be bad enough, but then casting a vote that is in the interest of your donors and not the people is what I take real issue with.

Without lawyers, we wouldn't have any money in the Democratic Party. Unions, many of them support drilling in ANWR. Environmental groups, don't take their money? Hollywood, supporting first amendment? Anybody can be smeared with the broad term "special interests". It's whether they sat down with people and wrote legislation, like Cheney and the Energy Bill, that counts.

Seriously, George Bush can have 200 million, and we'll sit back with a cool 100G's. I'm sure we'll win!

People around here can piss about it all they want, it was good for the economy and good for people. The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated YEARS ago and has nothing to do with O'Reilly being on the airwaves today.

more.

It was misguided regulation that protected incumbent phone companies but was disguised as competitive reform

http://www.watpa.org/telcom.html

"special interest group." 51+ % of the population a special interest group? :-)

My concern about lobbying money is only when an elected official takes money from a person or group who has legislation or another official matter on which the official has a vote, veto or other influence.

publish the platforms for free and let them make public appearances but no TV, no radio, no print except from platform statements.

Wouldn't it be nice to stick with issues ?

I'd support #2, but only if the Republicans were similarly hamstrung. Otherwise, I support #1.

But I'd love to see #2 -- but can't vote for it in a vaccum.

BushCo has managed to "delay" their primary and fund-raising efforts until 2 months before the next election where the millions he's collected merge with the millions he's about to spend in a space of three or four months.

And who's to say if the situation is honest or not unless "we" get involved before-hand?

I don't know, but it's up to each and every one of us to make America work as an a Democractic Entity like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR and Kennnedy imagined it would.

I can only counter with the views I've learned in the past from reading history and experiencing it since my 1953 birthdate.

Edwards and Kerry are closest to Bush in terms of percentages of donations from this donor demographic
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp?format=&sortby=2

is tied to telecom. You don't get to be the #1 special interest senator by being the champion of soup kitchens,