https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4613744512420419288&postID=7027899764188904310&page=1

I understand what you mean by questioning the sources for financing in today's politics. In the past, there has been extreme accounts of people lobbying to get tax benefits, to get a bill passed, to get a governemnt contract to work in Iraq (Halliburton) and much more. I think it is absurd that we allow so much money to be tossed around just for financing a campaign. In the long run, is it more important to vote for soomebody because they could raise more money? I think the answer to this is no, because the people who often raise the most money, are most supported by the wealthy lobbyists who can afford to make a campaign donation. They don't represent the normal population.

I think the government should set new standards to our campaigns. I think we should use tax payers' money to split evenly between the candidates, and instead of having massive advertising campaigns, have the candidates speak through tv shows, debates against each other, and other personal agenda's, instead off leaving a TV message or sending you a letter in the mail. That way people would vote for who they saw as the better of the two candidates; not who they knew most about due to large campaign funding.

Good use of criticism, although it is a little choppy and lacks direction. You make it obvious that you feel similar to me in that raising money for campaigns isn't necessarily a positive attribute, but it is hard to accuse somebody of potentially "getting his hands dirty" because there is no proof of this yet.