Why does a political party compete internally for the buck? Why should Joe or Jill Average who are rare breed Democrats from Wyoming care about contributing to Daschle’s re-election? Hillary sends a letter asking for money to support the senate re-election committee and in the same day mail her husband is asking for a contribution to the DNC. At the same time e-mail is overloaded requesting contributions to the presidential candidates or to contribute to preserving social security. It goes on and on without let up at a wasteful cost in marketing and mailing.


There has to be a better unified way to collect the bucks without this relentless redundant bombardment. Why can’t there be an annual contribution to the party for equal or meritorious distribution? Moreover, candidates are asking for contributions before party members are sure who is their candidate of choice and feel they are being rushed to judgment. Equally detestable is measuring a candidate’s popularity by the amount of loot they have managed to garner by cunning marketing. Dean, for example, can get away with his gaffs because he is the leading fund-raiser. In addition, campaigning is just too damnably long, monotonous and much too costly. The money being thrown around could be put to better use.


Charities in competition is another peeve: how do you weigh contributing to the Christopher Reeve Foundation vs Paralyzed Veterans, or Doctors without Borders vs the Red Cross? And what does “favorite charity” mean — give all and forget the others? Further, why are these organizations put through this excruciating and costly marketing of robbing Peter to pay Paul and Mary? Whatever happened to the United Fund — or is there no longer trust in a single organization?