|
For media Press kit | Fact sheets
| Contact
|
About this campaign | Campaign finance corruption About this campaign Stephanie Sailor vs. The Machine is cyber campaign, run on $0. Stephanie is not a career politician. She is an everyday citizen -- just like you -- and doesn't have the money or time to launch a campaign filled with fluff and fanfare. Stephanie's electronic war chest of ones and zeroes is economical, cheap, and fast. Thanks to the internet, simple citizens like Stephanie can stand up against politicians. Stephanie is using creativity and innovation to fight The Machine. Her website includes downloadable photos with full-reproduction rights for the media and others. Site visitors can also download fliers for photocopying and mass distribution. The art of political cartoons and commentary is brought into the 21st Century Tech Age, as voters can view animations and advertisements in the entertainment section. From a marketing standpoint, Stephanie is using everything in her power to sell her campaign message, right down to the way in which her name will appear on the ballot. When voters hit the voting booths in November, they'll be met with her nickname on their ballots: Instead of accepting campaign contributions, Stephanie is rallying to raise funds for charity and pro-liberty groups. Her political un-fundraiser is a way of illustrating how libertarians (and non-libertarians) enjoy giving their money to help others, so long as it's done voluntarily, by choice. Which is far more effective than expecting to government to solve our problems. After all, government-run programs are funded via coersive force (taxation), which creates feelings of entitlement for some, and feelings of anger and resentment for others. Furthermore, government-sponsored programs are notoriously inefficient and almost always fail. Rarely, if ever, is anyone in government held accountable for their mishaps. Turning to private charity to help fix problems, rather than turning to the government, makes sense because private organizations are far more efficient than the unaccountable bureaucracy of big government. Above all, government-sponsored programs encourage a state of dependency, rather than freedom. The funds pledged via Stephanie vs. the Machine campaign will go towards causes that fight for independence from, rather than dependence upon, the government. Most importantly, Sailor vs. the Machine pledge funds will help people help themselves. --back to top-- Campaign finance corruption Despite Stephanie's Congressional run on $0, she has absolutely no problem with enormous campaign contributions. Citizens should be allowed to freely spend their money on whatever they choose -- whether it's $1 or $1,000,000+ on a campaign -- or anything else they desire. True freedom includes economic freedom and the right to do whatever you please with your money. Jacob Hornberger, president of of Future of Freedom Foundation, asks compelling questions about campaign finance reform: Lost in all the discussion and debate is a fundamental moral question: Why shouldn't a person be free to do whatever he wants with his own money -- spend it, save it, invest it, hoard it, donate it, or even destroy it? Isn't it his money? And if it is his money, why shouldn't he be free to donate any amount he wants to anyone, including political candidates? Setting aside the moral aspect of the issue, campaign finance "reform" is simply a flat-out lie. Touted for banning "soft money" contributions, the most recent Shays-Meham Campaign Finance Bill that passed is actually a restriction on free speech and people's right to freely make political party contributions as they so desire. This most recent campaign finance un-reform should send citizens into an outrage. According to David Henderson of the Hoover Institute, the new law: ...makes it a crime for various groups to spend money advocating the defeat or election of a given candidate or ballot proposition. The restrictions apply to the thirty days immediately preceding a primary election and the sixty days preceding a general election. In other words, competing voices are silenced when it matters most for them to be heard. Campaign finance "reform" is really government control on political speech. Such suffocations of speech secure the status of incumbent politicans. Limits on political advertising by non-affiliated groups protects incumbents and further empowers the media. It removes the ability of citizens to band together over common political causes, which is vitally important, especially when they are fighting against powers as strong as The Machine. Putting a choke on free speech is especially stifling for a candidate like Stephanie, when all she has to fight with is speech. It should come as no surprise that incumbent Congressqueen Jan Schakowsky voted in support of of the Shays-Meehan bill, which is severely unconstitutional and ruthlessly un-American. --back to top-- [People before politicians -- please give to charity] |