SUPPORT EXCLUSIVE PUBLIC FUNDING FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

It is absurd, the amount of money spent on political campaigns. More incongruous is the disparity between the private contributions coming from special interests and that coming from ordinary citizens. After the elections, the winners are sure to pay more attention to the demands of the former. Average citizen Joe Blow does not have the means to lobby government the way big corporations can.

Opponents of public financing cite the dissemination of free speech as the main reason the private financing of political campaigns is healthy and necessary. I disagree. First, the sensationalist and hyperactive formats that characterize political campaigns may pass as free speech, but they hardly amount to accurate or informative speech. The latter, in addition to the former, is what we need for the health of our nation. Second, there is an uneven distribution of that freedom of speech or expression. Some people enjoy a much greater freedom, namely people with big pockets and those who represent special interests. Finally, to inform the public about each candidate’s or each party’s political platform, it is not necessary to spend such large sums of money. We can do it much cheaper.

What do voters need to know? We need to know the candidates’ position on relevant issues. Would a few pieces of paper do the job? I think so. Have each political party send a mailing to every household in the country stating where they stand. Include a mailing address for those who may want to write. Extra copies could be available at the local post office or public library. Have each political party open up an official website to interact with citizens that need clarification on issues. To keep citizens up to date, make candidates and the latest information available to the press. Each party can also announce a toll free number where people can call to hear recorded messages or leave short comments. If there is any money left, then spend it on political advertising. Finally, make it mandatory for each candidate to participate in a sufficient number of televised debates. Fair rules and expert moderators would facilitate the fair exchange of opinions. These are just some ideas. I am sure there are more ways to ensure freedom of speech without spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

The one aspect of public financing that bothers me is giving out public funds to parties and candidates that have no chance to emerge victorious. I have no idea what the standard should be, but minor runners for office should show proof of a respectable or reasonable following before qualifying for campaign funds. Nothing says we have to subsidize those who are crazy, eccentric, or not serious about holding public office. Nevertheless, by doing away with the private financing of political campaigns, we eliminate the excesses of current campaigns. Candidates and parties will need only a fraction of the funds spent today, if they just use the simple methods recommended above.

Perhaps I am out of my league, proposing what I propose. It is true I am no political pundit. However, I know I do not need all the television / radio ads, and all the hype that accompany an election to make an informed decision. All I need are the facts, plainly stated in a piece of paper. If I have questions, I can phone, write, or e-mail somebody. Furthermore, I can keep abreast of what the media has to say, and exchange opinions with other citizens. Then, on Election Day, I can cast my vote knowing it will count the same as any other vote. By eliminating the private financing of political campaigns, we increase the chances our elected officials act fairly for the benefit of all the people, not just a few. What is more, instead of spending so much time in fund raising activities, they can concentrate on doing the job we elected them to do.

Recommended Reading: Ercian Testament - Part One, chapter 5 “Ideas and Messiahs.”