Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Monday, February 1, 2010

campaign finance reform

In politics today it seems as if we are always voting for the better of the two bad options. We are not pleased with our choices and therefore we pull the lever for the one that we dislike the least. Those seem to be very poor choices.

So what do we do? The answer is—nothing. We commiserate with our friends and complain about the poor choices that our system provides. We wonder where have all the great leaders gone. Where are the Lincolns? The Washingtons? The answer is, they are still here. They are our friends some of whom are business people and some who are not. They are the guy or gal who built a business with nothing but a dream, the mechanic who fixes your car or the plumber who fixes your sink. Yes, these are our leaders, however, they would never imagine they could be elected in today’s world.

By running a business, they have already shown leadership talents and the guts to go it alone in the business world. They know how to take chances and have shown that they are can make decisions. They are proven leaders by running a successful business. So what is lacking?

They lack to valuable assets. The first answer is money. Today, regardless how wealthy he or she might be, a politician has to spend most of their time raising money for the next run. They have to raise millions. However, those dollars do not come without strings attached. The donors expect something for their money. They want access and they want their pet projects to be passed by their representatives, regardless if it is in the best interests of the public at large.

Even if the politician is well healed, which is true for most serving in Washington, they don’t want to spend most of their personal fortune trying to get elected or to stay in office, so they to have to raise money. So we see money bundlers becoming the venture capitalists of the political game. They bundle the money and present it to the politicians. It is much easier to meet with one bundler than several thousand of the “peasants.” Our government is being sold to the highest bidder.

If money was not the biggest hurdle, the amount of time that is required to be on the campaign trail also precludes any one who does not have personal wealth from joining in on the race. Can you imagine a plumber with creative ideas about government trying to run a campaign as well as running his plumbing business? It would be impossible. To be able to take the time away from the business, a candidate has to have deep pockets and a business that does not require his or her daily attention. Most businesses are not that way. Could Lincoln taken two years away from his practice to run for President?

So what is the answer? As much as it pains me to say so, I believe that the only answer is public financing of campaigns and a limited campaign time. I am not a believer in government handouts, however, to level the playing field so that more participants could participate, it must be done.

Public financing would limit the amount of money that could be spent. Each candidate would be given a limited budget to spend the way he or she wanted. If they ran a spartan campaign, it would go farther than one that had all the bells and whistles. Any money left over from a campaign would not be credited to the next campaign. It would be returned to the government. All incumbents would receive 90% of the money as each of their competitors as they have the advantage of incumbency.

The amount of time for a campaign would also be limited. Campaigns for local governments (including state governors, senators and representatives) would be limited to 3 months before election date. U.S. senators and Representatives would be limited to 6 months. Presidential campaigns would be limited to 9 months that would include three months prior to the primary and the 6 months thereafter.

Wow, you say, what a great idea. Unfortunately, today it will not work in Washington. The reason—incumbency. Does anyone really think that an incumbent would vote for such a plan? Well over 90% of all incumbents in Washington get re-elected year after year. They have set up the plan so it works best for them. Why would they want to vote for something that would literally risk their franchise they have on their seat?

So how do we get the Lincolns and Washingtons back Washington? We all must become active in local politics. We need to start the ball rolling with the local school board election or City Council and follow that with other local and statewide elections. Once we get the ball rolling, those Washington insiders will get the message. It will take some time and lots of effort, but it will happen.

To get the “common man or woman” involved in government, we need to remove the current hurdles of time and money, if we do, government will improve and we won’t have to choose between the best of two bad options.

1 comment:

  1. We agree almost 100% on both the problem and the solution.

    What really annoys me about this Supreme Court decision is that the people of Arizona at least took a step toward what you advocate. They passed a state-wide ballot initiative to provide some more public funding obviously needed to "level the playing field" in their elections and to combat political corruption in their state.

    With Citizens United and now this decision, it is clear that the Supreme Court is determined to give the super pacs with all their secret money even more influence over elections.

    They are also stomping on states rights to control their own electoral processes.

    --David

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.