tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8022142859840238138.post5608019388727008854..comments2024-02-12T00:57:52.353-08:00Comments on Quitting Providence: Citizens United and loosely related thoughtsPaul Criderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16235745213619044291noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8022142859840238138.post-69091661445419800792010-01-22T16:11:36.044-08:002010-01-22T16:11:36.044-08:00Weakening the two-party system was just an idea I ...Weakening the two-party system was just an idea I wanted to write about a bit. Nothing about this SCOTUS decision will radically alter the two-party system.<br /><br />If you don't have organizations (corporations, non-profits, etc) paying for ads, the advantage goes to the default option, the incumbent.<br /><br />Voters by and large do not choose based on content regardless of bells, whistles, or shining lights. 3/4 of people don't know what general policy subject area the term 'cap and trade' has to do with.<br /><br />I know no such campaign finance stats.Paul Criderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16235745213619044291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8022142859840238138.post-83910327103453086322010-01-22T10:48:33.487-08:002010-01-22T10:48:33.487-08:00Nice point on the transparency of campaign adverti...Nice point on the transparency of campaign advertising, and the importance of "weakening the two-party system". However, are we talking about "corporations controlling politicians" or "politicians getting elected"? Because the reliance on ads makes corporate intrusion necessary for a candidate to win (and is not good whatsoever for "weakening the two-party system"). If candidates had to run with fewer bells and whistles in their ads, voters might be forced to choose based on content, not media exposure, and candidates may have less need for corporate sponsorship. Any idea what the stats are on how much of a politicians finances are devoted to campaigns?Natashahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00548063278078192795noreply@blogger.com