TO: All Presidential Candidates And Their Campaign Managers.

REGARDING: A Political Strategy That Could Win The Election, While Regaining The Trust Of The American People.

FROM: A Mom Who Cares About America.

All this talk about the millions of dollars being raised by the Presidential candidates really got me thinking......

Are these campaign managers really getting the most "bang" for their "buck"? And, is any of this money contributing to the overall welfare of the American people?

After just three months of fundraising, the candidates for president in 2008 have already raised more than $150 million. No presidential money chase has ever started so quickly. By some predictions, the eventual nominees will need to raise $500 million apiece to compete—a record sum. -- see specific breakdown of each candidate

Campaign reform is obviously not working. More and more money to political campaigns is coming from corporate lobbies, hoping to have policy written in their favor. Just two examples of this would be; the Pharmaceutical Lobbies and the Oil & Gas Lobbies. As much as I hate it, I don't see any sign of this practice stopping. So, for the sake of stopping "chasing our tails" on this one....let's just "throw in the towel". Let the politicians raise as much money as they want from all willing to fund them.

Check out the MONEY WEB -- This social networking tool—new to OpenSecrets.org for the '08 election—illustrates links between candidates and donors. Included in this web are the 5 top contributors and industries (including ties) to each of the candidates we profile. Click on a bubble to start making connections among candidates, their top-giving industries and top contributors.

I would just like to suggest a better way of spending this money during the campaign, in order to optimize the amount of votes this money could actually "buy" for a campaign. Really, lets just say it..."buy"....it is what is happening.

Federal Election Commission reports show the Republican committee has spent $41.9 million attacking Democrats and $5 million praising its own candidates -- an 8-to-1 negative-to-positive ratio. The Democratic committee has spent $18 million attacking Republicans and $3.1 million backing Democrats -- an almost 6-to-1 negative-to-positive ratio.

"A lot of people are saying this is most negative election in history, but I'm always skeptical of those comments because I hear them every election," said Brooks Jackson, director of Factcheck.org and a longtime political reporter for CNN, the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press. "This time it might be true. It's hard to see when over 90 percent of the Republican ads are negative how you could go any more negative than this." -- full article

Let's just make it work for the greater good of the American people.

Interactive Federal Budget Pie Chart -- She where federal funds are going now, and then adjust the budget to how you would allocate the money...and then compare.

I am willing to bet that the majority of voters in our country are sick of seeing commercial after commercial of attack ads and political mumbo-jumbo. This practice is probably causing more people NOT to vote, than it is encouraging people TO VOTE. That is why my suggestion does away with this practice (on a voluntary basis of course).

Why is all this money going to such sleazy fluff that really does not matter and insults American citizens as they belittle them to malleable actors who will act upon any lurid or trivial factoid?

Aren't there millions of Americans who lack health insurance? Is the federal debt burgeoning way beyond reason? Don't millions of people starve each day in the world? How many more causes deserve this money more than political attack ads? -- read more

Just imagine how much positive press a candidate would receive from all media (press, television, internet, etc), by using their money to actually, "put their money where their mouth is". They could go all around the country and use this campaign money to set-up scholarship programs, feed the hungry, give medical insurance to kids slipping through the cracks....BASICALLY, USE THE MONEY TO HELP THE PEOPLE....the sky is the limit. Of course they will also be using these opportunities to create positive press for themselves, as well as talk about their campaign. But to what end? Helping people that need it? Or flushing it down the toilet making attack ads? Which candidate do you think the American people would vote for?

Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) have made tremendous progress in improving children’s health insurance, currently providing coverage to over 30 million children. Yet nine million children in America, almost 90% living in working households and a majority in two-parent families, are still uninsured. -- full article

Across the nation, pundits and politicians are saying Washington's stinginess is to blame for children who may lose their health coverage through the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

With looming budget shortfalls, 14 states -- including Wisconsin -- say they can't pay their bills for SCHIP this year unless the federal government bails them out. -- full article

It was recently reported that there are 744,000 people that are homeless in the United States today. Even worse, over 40% of the homeless are families. Reuters reported that more Americans went homeless and hungry in 2006 than the year before and that children made up almost one quarter of those in emergency shelters.

Children and families are the new faces of the homeless and hungry in America, and it seems to me that most Americans, as well as the government would just like to turn a blind-eye to this growing crisis. Why is that? We are the richest and most powerful country in the world, surely we can help are own citizens? -- read full post

You (as a Presidential Candidate), have the once in a lifetime chance, to "Be The Change You Want To See In The World" -- Why not take it?

Who would the American people vote for? The candidate that turns the face of political campaigning on it's head, by using their campaign money to help as many American's as possible? Or the candidate that continues to stroke their own ego, and put themselves ahead of the American people?

The American people are not stupid. We know that political promises mean nothing, unless they are being made to multi-billion dollar corporations donating to a campaign. So why not have it both ways? Use the donated money to promote your agenda of being the best person to serve the people of this country, (you will still be able to use your political interests to help the lobbies once you get to Washington).

The Annie E. Casey Foundation -- Helping Vulnerable Kids and Families Succeed.

America's Second Harvest -- The Nation's Food Bank Network

It's a win-win. The more "needy" people that are helped by using campaign money, the less that taxpayers will have to pay to support some of these issues with tax increases. So you are actually courting both the Democratic vote as well as the Republican vote with this strategy. And, the Corporate financiers of your campaign get a better rap as well; when their donated millions goes toward helping actual American people, and not just lining political pockets.

Why not be the first candidate to change politics for the good of the people? Blow all the rest of the candidates out of the water, by using your money for ACTION and COMPASSION. You may just discover a new campaign strategy that can win you the election.

May the person who cares about the American people the most, WIN.

------------------------------------------------

Other important and interesting links...

WAND -- Women. Power. Peace.

National Priorities Project

OpenSecrets.org -- Your guide to the Money in U.S. Elections.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at Women 4 Hope and CatherineBlogs.com