I have no regrets voting for Thomas Marking, especially after reading this article

Marking points out the obvious;

“I think that was probably the third-best choice,” Marking said this week of the winner, Kristi Noem.

And he adds;

Marking said he will not run for national office again unless the rules change and there is public financing of campaigns. Having $10,000 to compete with millions just isn’t worthwhile, he said.

“Not until the rules change and there’s a chance for a fair fight,” Marking said. “There’s no point. It means a lot of good people who could be representing us in D.C. don’t bother running.”

I have often said public financing of campaigns would level the playing field. Nowadays, it is who has the biggest checkbook. Noem spent twice as much as Steffy, she won. Huether spent almost 3x more then Staggers, he won. The proof is in the pudding. Publicly finance elections, and the rich and powerful will quit running, and we will get REAL candidates.



14 comments ↓

#1 jeff on 11.12.10 at 5:57 am

i wish he’d have won. he is so right about campaign rules changes. how can that ever happen with the inmates are running the asylum?

Term limits are needed as badly.

#2 Ol' Timer on 11.12.10 at 6:12 am

Agree but also Marking admits Noem was third choice and he did not have a chance. But by him being in the race, we got the third choice instead of the second choice. In a strong Republican state like South Dakota, you throw a third party candiate in the mix and the R person will win everytime. The straight party voters in the R party out number the straight party voters in the D party. And more Dems will vote independent then Republicans.

So we can thank Marking for Noem. Marking by the way made a living off the federal government and still does. He is a “reservist” for FEMA. No there is a government agency who has their shit together.

#3 jeff on 11.12.10 at 7:32 am

I’ll join you in thanking Marking for noem. one less incumbent screwing us.

#4 rufusx on 11.12.10 at 8:22 am

Reimplementing the fairness doctrine (killed off by Reagan) would level the palying field to a great degree. heard an interesting proposal to require FEDERALLY LICENSED BROADCAST MEDIA to run euqal numbers/times of ads for ALL candidates for office FREE of CHARGE as a means of fulfilling their legal obligation to provide a service to the public as part of their licensure. THAT would eliminate a great deal of the NEED for funding as well. There are ways to level the field without chasing $$$$ as the answer.

#5 l3wis on 11.12.10 at 8:30 am

The Dems also failed to show up to the polls.

#6 Jim on 11.12.10 at 10:45 am

The problem with fairness doctrine though is that it ignores what people want to hear. I won’t go into the popularity of conservative vs liberal talk radio. I do like the notion of free advertising, but would be even more supportive of NO advertising for politicians. Campaign finance reform is the way to go. No money outside of the area the election focuses on. County elections, county residents only, state then state residents only, national same deal, and no donations from business nor anything over 1,000 dollars. Simple and easy to understand with no technical language with loopholes, cut and dried.

#7 Pathloss on 11.12.10 at 11:57 am

Noem and Huether barely won. Even just some spending equilibrium would mean more competant leaders. This country was born from leaders who gave something back, not greedy egotists working for PAC’s or local developers.

#8 l3wis on 11.12.10 at 9:07 pm

Pathloss is right, Noem and Huether both bought the election.

#9 concern liberal on 11.13.10 at 5:50 pm

The Democrats just did not show up. In District 12,
Johnston’s numbers were no better than Wick’s were
two years ago against Jerstad, but this time Jerstad
lost by a 1000 plus, after having defeated Wick in 2008.

#10 l3wis on 11.13.10 at 9:59 pm

Maybe they weren’t feeling that ‘Hopey / Changey’ thing.

#11 Costner on 11.14.10 at 3:28 pm

How would you actually decide who gets the public financing? If money wasn’t an issue, you would have a few dozen candidates running for every office… maybe even a hundred – because fundraising is the hardest part of the campaign.

If you are talking about merely funding those who make it beyond the primary you will just find those with the most private funding will win the primary, so how would public financing ever change anything?

#12 l3wis on 11.14.10 at 7:11 pm

I actually think you would have less people running, because you would truly recruit candidates that want to do good.

#13 Costner on 11.15.10 at 8:05 am

Hell l3wis, even I would run for public office if I didn’t have to worry about raising funds. I’m not the type to make promises to those who donate to me, and I’m not an asskisser nor a liar, so raising funds for me is nearly impossible.

If my campaign was publicly financed, I’d jump on the boat tomorrow, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. I just don’t see how you would ever control who gets the money and who doesn’t.

I suppose you could set an amount up front and all potential candidates have to split, but if you have $1 Million set aside for a race and 78 people want it, that leaves them with around $12,800 each. That amount of money isn’t about to buy many direct mailings or fund more than a handful of commercials, and if the candidate was prevented from raising funds by any other means how exactly could a good candidate rise above the crowd to be noticed?

#14 l3wis on 11.15.10 at 12:32 pm

I think the way Colorado does it (which has the rule for their state house) is you have to write a letter of intention and you have to have a clear set of stances on issues. You can’t just hand over a list of petition signers. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t have time to look right now.