TED Conversations

Ward Williams

This conversation is closed.

Given current networking and opensource possibilities is it possible to conduct a run for high office using little or no money?

I think politicians are bought and sold like any other commodity. While I don't think money is the root of all evil, it contributes mightily, and has no place in deciding who we choose as leaders. I've noticed that campaign finance reform is only talked about when someone gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and then is dropped as soon as the heat dies down. There is no incentive for our employees to change the rules, because the rules favor them.
We could publicly pay for campaigns. Everyone gets the same money, and when it's gone it's gone. This would eliminate special interest contributions, and give everyone a skin in the game, but only one. This seems a better choice to me than what we're doing. What we have now is tantamount to jury tampering for which jail time is required.
Beyond public financing, would it be possible to run with no money at all? We're becoming a more and more interconnected bunch, with the resources to share without the input or contribution from the typical media.
Any other ideas?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 25 2013: In 2010, I started doing the research to run for president in a really REALLY free election. I would accept no campaign donations (so be owned by no one or no group) and I would spend no money (equalizing it). I went through the states election laws one-by-one. I put together a database that listed deadlines, tied to my day-timer, as well as requirements. What I found stunned me. It is 100% impossible to run for office without spending serious money. Just the filing requirements - made intentionally high - were prohibitive.

    Begin with most states give immunity to incumbents and the two major political parties. But just for the signatures to get on the ballot, most states require forms where only 8 names appear on a page. That's WELL over 4,000 pages for a typical state. (times 50) Some states limit the time that you are allowed to collect signatures to impossibly small or inconvenient times. States like Arizona do not allow petitioners to be registered with another political party, so petitioners must first go to the election office to see if they have been removed from the rolls of a party they no longer want to support. FOR STARTERS.

    Write-ins are not allowed in too many states. Some of those states that allow write-ins do not count the votes and there is no provision for a ballot of electors. Add to that that the minute that you say you are running for office, reports every other week are required for both state and federal election commissions. Bottom line: It's not possible for someone with a sensible, well-articulated plan for getting us out of our predicament to run for any office that would allow those solutions to be heard without one first being bought by the military industrial complex who will squelch them.

    I stopped making my cartoon campaign videos that I hoped would go viral. I closed down my database and cleaned out my day timer. I resigned myself to what was obvious and gave up on America. The people are the government's enemy
    • thumb
      Feb 25 2013: I knew It would be difficult but what you're saying makes me sick. There can be no other reason than to prevent the people from having a voice. I've always known there was a turd in the punch bowl but this is over the top. Sad, really sad.
    • thumb
      Feb 25 2013: When the government becomes power hungry and oppressive how is it is a bad thing to be " the government's enemy"? You couldn't be president so you gave-up on America? How about trying for the City Council? Nil Carborundum Illigitimi!
    • thumb
      Feb 26 2013: Rather than all the fighting about policy issues, would we be better served to protest and start a movement that demands serious reform (overhaul / redo / reset) of this kind of malignancy, that would provide a plausible way for more people to have an opportunity to serve if they want to? Would this be a more unifying effort, something many people would get behind? It is a non-partisan concern that not many would object to, unless of course you're part of the ruling elite who might lose the perks.

      Start an effort to end this kind of stuff and see who squeals.
      • thumb
        Feb 26 2013: That's what the Occupy movement was all about:: introducing people to the idea of how to reclaim government, by educating themselves enough to be able to. But it was as much maligned & misunderstood as the Tea Party movement, which had much in common with Occupy - though the Tea Partiers didn't believe it.

        The bottom line is that we have been LIED to about our own history, so as we try to put a government framework together that would meet the peoples' needs (as the Constitution was written to, and if honored, would restore), most are working with the lies. Neither side wants Constitutional Law, preferring instead the British Common Law that we have thanks to a coup d'etat in 1819 - that you haven't been told about (but for which, clear documentary evidence exists.)

        People wanted to violate the Constitution rather than allow the amendment process to play out according to the will of the people. They wanted Congress to fix things, but Congress is unwilling to fulfill its constitutional mandate, so it wants the president and/or Supreme Court to fix things. It is unreasonable to assume that our elected & appointed representatives would give up money and power because a few people with no voice, and no understanding of what the core problem is, are speaking out. So everyone - people and government - are looking for ways to blame everyone else.

        A restoration of the 10th amendment (by amendment) that grants government 10 years to conform to it would be valuable, but unless otherwise amended, a lawful government would eliminate almost all government spending and almost all government intrusions in our lives. (which is why the 2 sides couldn't see how much they had in common - they fear each other.)

        We are not educated enough to know what we should know PLUS we confuse emotions with thought. This leaves us afraid, powerless & impotent. Government sponsored schools (indoctrination centers) teach & reward sheeple skills.

        Educate selves first. Learn how 2 think.
        • thumb
          Feb 26 2013: I couldn't agree more. Nothing really to add or dispute, with the exception that I do think it is repairable, given appropriate leadership. I don't think a guy has to become president to have meaningful influence. History is full of great leaders who were unknown and changed history.
      • thumb
        Feb 26 2013: Of course it's repairable. The solution exists. It's rational and it's not wild-eyed theory. But if the people themselves don't want the solution, because they don't understand what the core problem is, then in a government such as ours, it can't be implemented until the people allow it.

        Yes, there have been great leaders who changed history even though they weren't in high political office. But they did so when the times provided the opportunity. It appears that America wants to hit bottom, from whence such opportunities arise.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.