Will Obama Consider Himself Indebted to Those Who Contribute to His Campaign?

That is the question running through my mind right now. Many of you say '" yes he will " and I have my doubts as well. We have all seen the political fawning over certain industries and corporations throughout the past hundred years and how this has skewed the free market for the rest of us.

Obama so far has maintained a clean image that spoke words like " I am for the people. " and " I am above corruption. " But can we really believe it? Sure I heard Obama say his action to take private funding was in response to financial manipulations from the Republican party. Was his abrupt change of direction a bad decision? I think so. But does he have the right to do so? By current standards of law, Absolutely.

What we need in this country are reforms to election law. As it stands now acceptance of private funds to support political campaigns are completely legal and accepted by many people today. In my opinion this is unacceptable as it creates the opportunity for a ' good old boy ' network to work toward an agenda of feeding the people loaded information that they know will produce a specific psychological reaction in response to this exposure.

It has long been a known fact that a cult named the Moonies used a psychological method of manipulation called reciprocation to get money from people who passed them by at airports and at busy street corners. Their passive aggressive style of

fundraising involved pressing a simple flower, usually picked off the side of the road that morning, into the hands of people. A certain number of those people targeted felt indebted to give the Moonies something in return as a reaction. Moonies always worked in groups because it is harder for someone to say no to a group of people who on the surface seem to be doing good works. You may think that receiving a gift does not create a situation where manipulation can occur and you would be wrong in your assumption. What reciprocation means in this sense is the instinctive need to give something back to those who give you something first. Research has proven that the amount given back is in no way related to the value of what was given but is purely an instinctive response.

In my opinion private funding of elections invokes the same mindset in a politician. I purpose we adopt a law that makes political campaigning totally funded by public funds so no politician will ever be put in the position of feeling as if they have to return the favor when that feeling could have been created by use of the reciprocation model. This would be an amazingly cheap price to pay for an election that is more fair and balanced.

Another law in addition to the one above would be to require all corporate media outlets with the capability to air a fair amount of coverage for each candidate. We could repay them with a 100% tax deduction based on the amount of lost revenue caused by complying with the law. This law would not be so cheaply implemented as the first but would insure fair media coverage for all candidates. A sub-section of this law would prohibit the candidates or their representatives from mentioning other candidates in their media coverage thereby encouraging them to share information about themselves rather than attacking other candidates.

With the adoption of these laws, no politician would actually need hundreds of millions of dollars to run an effective campaign. Documentaries produced in the neutral manner of the BBC before they changed their reporting style would be a great way to introduce candidates to the people so we could see examples of their behavior throughout their life other than at the time of election.

This is my take on what would create a fairer, more balanced playing field when it comes to elections. Whether you agree or disagree with me please think about this issue and decide in your mind what you see as acceptable behavior for a candidate and take appropriate action.