"Lowell C. Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > Fact: a majority of the people voted in favor of spending the money at > issue > in that "special election." It would appear as if 'the people' made their > "voice" known. (Note: I happen to disagree with the decision, but I don't > try to claim that "the people" were somehow disenfranchised by the > proceedings.)
Yes, Mr. Allen had his way at the expense of every citizen in the entire state. Your missing my point... Questions: Why should a group of citizens (voters) be forced to organize and raise millions of dollars to purchase campaign ads to provide some alternative message for the purpose of educating the people prior to voting? Why should 'principled' candidates be forced side with special interest(s) in order to raise the necessary money to become a 'viable' candidate? Why would 'the people' relenquish the power and authority to the "corporate owned media" to decide who's a viable candidate for public office? Have you ever heard the term; The only bad press is no press? All to often, at every level, principled viable candidates receive little if any press. Candidates lose some of their principles when they are forced to side with political parties and or special interest(s). The courts have ruled that 'money is speach' when addressing campaign finance laws. My position is to eliminate the need of raising big money to get your positions heard. So, that's my two cents, tell me yours... How would you work to eliminate the total sell-out of our most precious right, our right to vote in a democratic, free election? Feel the power? One issue at a time, 'the people' can and must unite to reform our beloved but corrupt America... Steven Thompson Ford, WA _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
