is not a good way to do that. The positive campaigns are the ones that should educate us. Positive campaigns promote the will of the people. The will of the people want trust, security, someone they can relate to. But with positive campaigns there is a drawback, it costs more money. Now you have those people who want to reform campaign finance. They feel we already spend too much money on campaigning. If you have the money supporting you, then you should be allowed to spend the money in whatever way it best suits your campaigning. More money does not mean a victory, just ask Ross Perot. More money could mean more positive campaigns and better education about the politicians for "we the people." Some people feel we should let the newspapers and media inform us about candidates, but the media is the worst critic of all. Journalists are paid big bucks to see who can find the dirtiest secret one person has done. So, what positive influences could the media possibly provide to us? Our media in this country is out of control and they inform us of issues we do not need to know about. While there are some Americans who want to hear these types of issues, many of us could not care less. In order to make positive campaigns more affective we need to get back to the basics. Politicians should serve their term limit and during their time they should do for the constituents and not spend so much time and money worrying about their next campaign. "We the people" elect those who represent certain issues and sometimes when they are sworn in to do their duty, they change their view on the issues. When politicians do this, it makes those who voted for him or her disappointed and cause them to lose faith in our democracy. The political system has succeeded but I believe it has little to do with religion. The founding fathers may have had God in mind but in todays society when dealing with our democracy, religion has nothing to do with ...
