Still undecided...

[americanagirl]

I, too, was still undecided and as usual, knew that TulsaNow posters would have some valuable insight.  The negative campaigning really turned me off and made me want to vote Perkins strictly out of protest, and frankly the picture of the three candidates in front of the downtown skyline made me shudder. However, I can't vote for mayor based on how well (or poorly) a candidate dresses, and I agree that Mark Perkins probably doesn't have enough experience to govern.  However, does having "wanted" to vote for him count for anything?

[Wrinkle]

Or maybe you simply ought to think before you turn on your computer.

On a related note, it's interesting to see what you're advocating. You're basically advocating campaign-finance reform.

So does that mean you also were in support of the much-maligned McCain-Feingold Act?

MF doesn't do it for me. It's a dent in the issue and provides means for an end-run around the intent.

Two things pretty much determine my position:

1) What rights are granted corporate entities by our Constitution?

and, 2) Who's election is it?

Elections are the peoples' method of selecting their representation.
The Constitution is centered on individual rights. Paper entities are not individuals.

I'm of the opinion corporations, even SIGS and PACS, role would be limited to affecting public opinion, not politicians. So, their money wouldn't be limited, just the focus. IOW, no direct contributions to politicians.

I'd go a step further and suggest the only people who should be allowed to donate directly to a campaign are persons (individuals) who can actually vote for that candidate.

All other activity by corps, PACs and SIGs would be directed directly at the constituancy to shape voter opinion, not buying candidates.

If candidates became dependent upon their actual constituancy for campaign funds, where do you think their focus would be? That's right, right where it should be, and was intended.