McHose irritated by clean elections program

Let's give this program a fair chance. Our biggest problem with elections at all levels has been the indifference of the so-called little guy, who sees big money interests taking up his responsibility. It's the horse PUSHING the cart, one might say. Cleaner elections really are possible, but the effort needs the grass roots ground swell.

I have to disagree with Alison McHose comments about the clean election program.The purpose of clean elections is to give the regular person a say in the elections not big business contributors.All of us Republicans have to work together and unite for a victory in November.

Great Point by Xenu as always.

McHose should just shut up and participate. She has the election already and it's not going to be hard for her to get 800, even 400 donations. She doesn't realize that this is a program that could help Republicans compete in Districts where they would get dominated on the fundraising.

Just because your from one of the few safe districts doesn't give you a right to be a whiney crybaby about a program that promotes participation and ensures that the legislator isn't getting campaign money from big dollar donors from corporations and companies.

Someone put a bottle in her mouth and shut her up. Come on Allison, how hard can it be for you to get 400 donations and send out a mailer or two just to remind people to vote for you? I hope voters send her a message and don't give her the donations she needs, but then that would ruin Clean Elections chances.

This isn't some Democratic technique to gain your district, they know it's safe, it's a technique to make elections more voter involved and less about big money donors with influence.

And gee whiz..it could help Republicans in districts where they cant compete. Imagine if the District 37 Republicans got to 400 and could compete with the Weinberg powerhouse? Wouldn't that help? Logic isn't a hard concept, use it sometime.

while i do not agree with mchose's principles for opposing clean elections specifically, i do oppose them simply for the matter that this is something that the state should not be paying for given its disgusting state of financial affairs... once we have a stable financial situation i.e. when we have no debts owed and such than the state would be better suited to embark on this process... i would rather see my tax dollars used to balance the budget and reduce the size of the govt than see it expand ever more

If the program suceeds (I forget the number needed, I believe it is 9 candidates), then it will be for the primaries as well in 09. They will also hopefully try and reduce the money given.

As far as independents getting less, well they are still getting way more then they ever have anyway and when was the last time an independent won an Assembly or State Senate Seat? (Especially if your not talking about the Democrats vs. Democrats in Hudson County.) Huge waste of taxpayer money?

Go look up and find how much Clean Elections cost per taxpayer if every candidate sucessfully files for the 800, I believe it's only something like a dollar per person. And that's if everyone gets there, which won't happen. Stop complaining, seriously. I'll gladly fork over a buck or two in taxes to ensure clean elections works.

The wheeling to which I refer is from the Leadership PAC's, (funded by campaign donations) and money that would have been dedicated to the "clean" districts, that are now funded by tax dollars, can go anywhere leadership wants them to.

This test, with a few trial districts, just allows the current majority to solidfy their advantage. I doubt that we will see a statewide program because too many powerful people could face a viable challenge.  Don't forget.... this is NJ.

Regarding the choice of the districts, in the 12 vs. 14 discussion, check the votes, if that was not partisan I don't know what is!

More complaining from McHose. Anyone surprised? I'm sure not. As I've pointed out in many other comments, the Fair & Clean Election program is exactly the sort of common sense, no-nonsense reform the state needs.

McHose's negative comments, I must add, are a perfect example of the very sort of petty, cynical, doom-and-gloom, poor me, and - to be frank - STUPID campaigning that does Republicans in year after year in New Jersey.

"Fixed" machine politics and pay to play is antidemocratic, un-American, morally/etically corrupt and in the long run...it's a threat to our national security as it makes us a less productive less prosperous and less powerfl nation; whichever party is doing it!

This lady is either an ignorant well meaning fool or a corrupt maleficent one; either way she's off base. The current system of legalized bribery is indefensible (have y'all noticed...no one vigorously /effectively defends it!!!).

!00% public campaign financing is possible within the existing Buckley vs Vallejo SCOTUS ruling.

The way I would deal with the problem a the rich trying to buy elections is to MATCH THEIR "FUNDING" DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR.

That tactic eliminates their "advantage" and it also would get lots of taxpayer really pissed off at them for forcing such a waste of money...thereby making it much less likely that the tactic would ever work again or be used again.

As for the people who say we can't afford it; I say it's costing us wayyyyyyy more to keep things dirty and innefficient...and in terms of quality of life and justice in general; having clean governance would be like heaven compared to the current state of corrupt affairs....and that applies whichever party would wind up winning.

I would rather have an honest competent Xenu-type in office than corrupt machine Democrats. (Though I would prefer honest/competent Democrats ;-)

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.