• November 24, 2014

Former councilwoman says votes, not money, still what win elections

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, December 7, 2013 4:30 am

To the Editor:

Much has been written about federal campaign funding lately. The United States Supreme Court is deciding if limitations should be placed on campaign spending.

One would be hard pressed to disagree with anything Dan Thomasson said in his article on Oct. 12. He seemed to be stating that our federal elections may be tainted by money.

But I am an optimist. I believe that a higher power is in control of everything. There are many accounts in the Bible for the optimistic novice politician to refer to for courage.

As a new Texan, I ran unopposed for a seat on the City Council in Killeen, and acquired that seat. It took practically no money and no votes.

Then I ran for a seat in the Texas House of Representatives. On a fixed income, namely pension and Social Security, I opened a campaign office and did the necessary work required with the help of a great group of supporters. I acquired a respectable 19,879 votes.

So take heart, you who would challenge a political system by running for office. The words in Desider’ata state, “Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism.”

I did not win my last political challenge, but it felt good to say yes to the challenge. As an optimistic American, I still believe that votes, not money, can win elections.

I do hope the United States’ conservative Supreme Court justices consider that money may be a corrupting factor in some political races.

I hope that the elite members of this auspicious branch of our federal government really do “strive for high ideals.”

Dr. Claudia L. Brown

Killeen

More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

6 comments:

  • Bubba posted at 6:39 pm on Sat, Dec 7, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 751

    Concur.

     
  • Bubba posted at 6:38 pm on Sat, Dec 7, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 751

    Concur.

     
  • wilcfry posted at 11:19 am on Sat, Dec 7, 2013.

    wilcfry Posts: 93

    Wasn't this same letter (or one very like it) published on this site a month or so ago? (I can't find it now). I remember commenting something along the lines of:

    Yes, the total tally of votes is what ultimately counts, but it's often very closely related to how much money is available per candidate. While unfortunate, it is realistic to expect that the better-funded campaign will have more success.

    (There are obvious exceptions such as incumbency, when apathy and name-recognition come into play; or campaigns in which one candidate is caught in a scandal and the other plays it gracefully.)

     
  • Alvin posted at 10:06 am on Sat, Dec 7, 2013.

    Alvin Posts: 223

    In rebuttal to Dr. Claudia L. Brown, It's true that 'votes' are what wins elections'. But money is also a deciding factor. In this last election when pamphlets were. as I remember, sent in the mail as to the 'character' of the 'opposing' candidate, as I recall, the charges were false in nature, but with the power of the all mighty dollar, many people were, I personally think, swayed to the other side. So you are correct, 'dollars don't make votes, but it sure helps'. President Obama's 'fame' resides in the fact that he had billions of dollars wherein he could keep his face plastered on the screen of our television set 24 hours a day, usurping the pittance that other candidates were able to garner.

    I agree – votes do win elections, but what is done to plant the inspiration in the minds the voters, namely money and political stature, can make all the difference in the world.

    So I too hope the Supreme Court decides it is unfair when a person can acquire that much wealth as to make it impossible to get a fair shake when running for office, especially an office such as a national office. I believe there should be limits to what one can carry into a political office. No one should be able to take billions, and I mean billions into an election campaign. There should be 'respectable' limits placed on candidates and I think they should be from Congress. No more of this allowing candidates to acquire campaign donations from 'private' citizens.

    I agree that there is a higher power that resides over each of us, but we, as individuals, have the 'free will which he gave us' to control our own destiny and that we, in many cases, are not doing.

     
  • don76550 posted at 9:51 am on Sat, Dec 7, 2013.

    don76550 Posts: 64

    Money is not why you lost Brown. I voted against you because of your extremist left wing views. This is Texas, not the peoples republic of Baltimore and nothing you stand for is right for Texas. I made it a point to educate voters on your extremist viewpoints, and evidently Lampasas county certainly agreed your were wrong for Texas.

     
  • Eliza posted at 9:22 am on Sat, Dec 7, 2013.

    Eliza Posts: 866

    @ I believe that a higher power is in control of everything.---

    I will have to agree with Dr Brown on the above before I would say anything else on the subject written about .


    Money inside politics,

    I do not think for instance, it should be allowed for one person to have a million dollars and another to have a thousand and expect they both would have the same advantage in winning a political race.
    If the race is to be state wide, The million dollars could buy that person recognition through out the state, where the thousand might only buy another, recognition in a certain area , leaving that person unknown through out the rest of the state.

    Too we have to wonder where the money is coming in from. In the last elections money entered the country from through the world, we don't know who was really involved in U.S. elections. That should Never Be Allowed, unless, the donation is from a very certifiable US citizen, who just happens to be living outside the states at the time.

    There are enough people on the Supreme Court who are suppose to be of a Conservative train of thought, they should be able to see without a lot of debate, what is the fair and honest thing to do.
    However the people have been stunned by a decision of this Supreme Court recently, with the tie breaking vote coming from one who is not only the Chief Justice, but was devised to be a ultimate conservative.
    His decision at that time, has helped tie the hands of the people of the country - All of them - into being forced to purchase a product - medical care - which has turned out to be a fiasco.
    I would hope they will have learn their lesson from this huge mistake and make a better decision on the subject of Money in Politics . And how much should be allowed and who should be allowed to give it.