About a week or two ago, I heard a local political ad on the radio. One candidate was bashing an opponent for accepting campaign donations from “questionable” sources. I don’t remember who the candidates are, but that’s irrelevant. This kind of a situation just shouldn’t be happening to begin with.
One of the biggest problems with our political system is that government can be bought just like a new car or a vacation. Those who have specific interests and deep pockets can control what happens in the government. Most politicians don’t make it into office just because they made attractive promises during debates or campaign stops. They won their elections because they raised a ton of money, allowing them to run a ton of advertising on TV, radio, print, online, and anywhere else imaginable. More often than not, the candidate who raised and spent the most money on their campaign is the one who wins the election.
Once a politician gets into office (or gets re-elected), they owe their contributors a favor or two. After all, when it comes time for re-election, it’s much easier to get “repeat donors” when you’ve been writing laws or voting on laws that lean in favor of those donors.
So, I was thinking — why not ban campaign donations entirely? Level the playing field. Each candidate in the same race gets the same amount of money from the government. That’s your budget. All campaign expenses must be paid with that budget; not one penny more. You can’t use your own money, you can’t accept donations from anyone. No outside influences. Candidates wouldn’t “owe” anyone any favors.
As I was writing this, I remembered - this isn’t necessarily a new idea. When I attended SUNY Oswego, similar rules were in place for the Student Association elections. Each candidate for President was given the same amount of money for their campaign. They could spend it however they liked, but that’s the only money they could use. No personal money, no outside donations.
In one way, it’s a pretty neat system because it can be interesting to see how the different candidates approach the situation. Let’s say each candidate for U.S. President had $20 Million, no more, no less, to spend on their campaigns. There’s no way they’d both spend the money exactly the same way. Or, instead of both, I could be saying “all 3″ or even “all 4,” if that many people qualified to get the money. Each candidate would have an equal opportunity to get their name out there. It wouldn’t be a matter of who can raise the most and who can spend the most, but rather, who spends their share most effectively.
If everyone has the same amount of money, the playing field is level. There are no hopelessly lopsided races. Seriously, you have to wonder how many times the “better” candidate actually wound up losing, just because they didn’t kiss as much ass and raise as much money as the competiton, because they stuck to their principles, rather than bending over backwards to please the contributors.
You know, as a person who has donated to campaigns and liked the concept, I think your idea would be great. I would love to totally level the playing field.
What are your thoughts on stopping political 527 organizations from running ads independently from the campaigner? I feel that should be fixed just as much.
Wow, someone found this and I didn’t even have to post it on Facebook!
I actually did think about the independent organizations that run ads on behalf of a candidate. After all, if people can’t donate directly to a candidate, they can use these organizations to get around the rules.
In order to truly level the playing field, you’d have to get rid of those. But I doubt that would ever happen, as these groups are protected by the First Amendment. There’s nothing stopping any single person from saying “you should vote for ____.” These independent organizations just happen to be a voice that has many backers, and enough money to broadcast themselves saying “you should vote for ____.”
So yeah, this comment and the original post are basically just a big dream. We’ll never see “level playing fields” when it comes to political campaigning. Especially considering the lawmakers who would have to take the steps to make this happen… are the same lawmakers who count on those big donors to help them extend their time in office. It’s a conflict of interest. These are people who can give themselves a pay raise just by voting for it. Try doing that at any private sector workplace. Likewise, they’d never vote for reforms that could potentially threaten their chances of re-election.
It never hurts to dream, it would def. be nice.
Its easy to find your new posts BTW. Added the RSS to Google Reader. RSS aggregation baby!