
The cost of getting elected to a national office is absolutely ridiculous! According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the 2008 candidates in the presidential race will raise more than $1 billion by the time the election is over. By comparison, the 2004 race raised a total of $880.5 million, and that was a record setting year. There has got to be a better way to run for office, other than buying it for a billion dollars.
Our country needs to take campaign finance reform seriously. The fact is that political campaigns have essentially become the same as running a big business, with a huge bureaucracy and exorbitant marketing budget, is just wrong. Voters are inundated with television, radio, print and online ads, but 30-second sound bites are hardly enough to be truly informative? And, on top of that, many are "attack ads" that don't tell you anything about the candidate paying for the ad, other than he or she approved it. This is an incredible waste of money!
So, who are the primary culprits for fueling this electoral spending spree? What groups are the primary donors with deep pockets and "altruistic" motives (Yeah, right!!!)? Big surprise, lawyers were at the top of the industry list, followed by retirees compelled to "donate" from their hard-earned savings to the political cauldrons (for a more expansive list of donors rankings, click here). PACs, financial service businesses and healthcare companies also share a significant portion of the blame.
Is there truly a demand for $1 billion worth of political spending during the campaign process though? Or, is it an example of overkill marketing, where the person who screams the loudest and longest wins in the end? Kind of like pounding a nail with a sledgehammer! Along the way, the message is getting lost.
Why can't running for office be simplified? And, why can't it be done for a fraction of the current cost? Wouldn't the money spent on campaigns do more good being invested back into the economy in more productive ways? I imagine the economic return on investment of every dollar spent on campaigning pales in comparison to shopping, increasing employee wages and expanding job opportunities.
It seems to me that there should be a way to level the playing field for each of the candidates by instituting a few simple changes:
1. Create one common means of donating to the campaign process.
2. Create a uniform limit for any one individual or entity to donate.
3. Give ALL presidential candidates regardless of party affiliation the same amount of money to spend in total, and in every region for the primaries, assuming their supporters have donated enough money to equal or exceed the allocated amount. Candidates who raise less for the process will get less to spend (or the same amount as they would have gotten otherwise). Give each party nominee the same amount of money to spend for the general election, assuming their supporters have donated an equivalent amount. Provide for the opportunity of an independent candidate to run in the general election and receive a comparable level of funds to spend, based on his/her ability to attain a certain number or percent of total votes cast during the primaries and whose supporters have contributed enough funds to the common pool.
4. For the primaries, divide the country into four campaign regions with roughly equivalent populations. Conduct primaries on a rotating basis within those regions. Allow candidates to choose how to spend allotted funds within each region as they see fit.
5. Allow candidates to spend the allotted amount money on general election campaigns as they see fit, but not to exceed the predetermined amount of funds set by law.
Drastic campaign finance reform will do two things: increase the potential number of candidates who stay in the race; and, level the playing field between candidates by shifting the focus away from money and toward the issues important to voters.
Running for the office of president should not be determined by the amount of money a candidate can raise, but rather by his or her ability to effectively inspire and lead our nation. As it stands right now, millions of dollars are being wasted, and voters are none-the-wiser for it. If a real business was to operate in the same manner that most candidates run for office, it would go bankrupt and consumers would not ask it to come back again in four years.
America needs to institute campaign finance reform laws. Please take the time to write to your Senator or Representative.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Campaign Spending is Out of Control
Posted by
Jeremy Neal
at
2:54 PM
Labels: campaign finance reform, Center for Responsive Politics, election 2008, wasteful spending
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)




2 comments:
I agree so much spending, I'm sure you get sick of all the commercials. In the UK, the political parties have less funding. Why are people so keen to give to election campaigns in US.
Thanks for economics carnival btw
T.Pettinger
www.economicshelp.org
Thanks for the comment. I get sick of all the negative ads, as well as the appearance that running for office is a popularity contest. I would much prefer a more concerted effort to spend money on informing and educating voters, rather than smearing opponents and tantalizing the public obsession with drama. Feel free to share some information about how things work in the UK.
Post a Comment