Rethinking Campaigns. |
Page
|
In the 2012 election, an estimated six billion dollars had been spent by the political parties through donations to the specific parties and donations to Super PACs (Gabbatt par 1). Outside spending alone has reached a record high of 7.4 million dollars and counting, compared to that of the 2004 election which was a little over 1.2 million dollars (Outside Spending). The Super PACs are not the central problem. They are an effect of our flawed campaign system which is in great need of reform. Campaign spending has reached an all-time high, and will only continue to escalate unless something is done. Since politicians have done nothing to prevent these campaign atrocities, I propose that citizens that see the grave injustice start a movement for our campaigns to be reformed to be more like France or England’s campaigns. The campaign spending needs to be regulated in areas such as media, the length of our elections needs to be shortened, and corporate, union, as well as other groups should not be allowed to donate to campaigns. This would be beneficial for our country, because we could use the money we save to help us out of the debt crisis we have landed in and stimulate the economy.
In the 2012 presidential election, Barak Obama has spent $404 million on television ads, and Mitt Romney spent $492 million. 83% of the ads from Barak Obama, and 90% from Mitt Romney were negative ads. (Mad Money). In other countries, such as France, there are media limitations for political campaigns. England has a complete ban on paid television and radio ads (Skoning par 3). In France, they are allowed 43 minutes of airtime spread over 18 different slots. They are not allowed to buy airtime (Crumley par 3 and 4). This not only saves money by not allowing candidates to buy more airtime, but it also saves the American people from getting fed up with the elections. This could cause a trend of more informed voters because the ads are focused on the issues not degrading the opponent. There are also rules on where the airtime can be placed so that it is fair for all incumbents (Crumley par 4). This would be a good adoption for the American presidential election because so much of the money raised goes to political ads. If the amount of money allowed for media campaigning was reduced and the same for each candidate, as to not favor one party over the other, then not only would money be saved, but the political ads would mainly target their policies due to the lack of time. |
This is just one dollar. The amounts accumulated in the election are that usually only heard of in movies.
|
Our current political campaign season runs for about two years. The main campaigning happens in the year of the election, but many of the incumbents start campaigning right after a president is elected. If we limited the presidential election like France and England a lot of money would be saved. England’s Prime Minister Campaign only lasts one month (Skoning par 4). I am not proposing we cut our nearly two year campaigns to a month. That would be far too drastic, but we could limit it to an eleven month period from a month before the primaries to the election date. This would not only be a relief to voters, but also get so much more accomplished. Instead of trying to dig up dirt or spread frivolous rumors about the opponents, the candidates could focus on the main issues, the things that don’t matter, such as whether if you’re born in Hawaii, or if you are one religion or another.
In France no legal entities are allowed to give money to political candidates. Legal entities are also not allowed to donate to political parties or groups. They are not allowed to make any direct or indirect donations to political affairs (Campaign Finance: France). This eliminates the threat of corruption and buying an election. On the complete opposite side of the spectrum, in America, we have Super PACs which are allowed to donate and accept unlimited funds as long as they are indirect expenditures. In the 2012 election, outside spending for Super PACs totaled to $710,011,924 (Outside Spending). Super PACs were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court Case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Political spending for corporations and unions is considered free speech and therefore protected by the constitution (Hebblethwaite par 5). This is a very different opinion from France which is more worried about keeping the elections clean rather than raising the most money.
There are some that believe, contribution limits and the shortening of the political campaign is limiting the rights of citizens or unconstitutional, but is not bribery or buying the election also unconstitutional? What they fail to notice is that a shortened campaign period would actually strengthen their freedom of speech, because the people would actually listen to what they say. There won’t be as long between the primaries and the debates will be closer together instead of drawn out like they are now. If candidates cannot buy airtime, then the election will be fair to all people running for president, rather than the ones with the deepest pockets. Instead it will be evenly distributed and shortened, similar to the campaigning in France (Crumley par 3). Lastly, limiting contribution amounts for Super PACs will not infringe on citizens’ rights. Despite the fact that corporations are now considered people, they should not have the same rights as people. If corporations spend less money on campaigns then they can use the money they saved to improve working conditions, hire new workers, or make new businesses. This will stimulate the economy and be an overall good thing.
I propose that the citizens of America, who are outraged by the ludicrous amounts of money being spent on an election instead of being put back into America, take up this cause of campaign finance reform. Tell your friends and family just what really goes on during elections. Where the money comes from and what they are doing with it. Once enough people are educated with the issue, hopefully they will feel the need to tell their congressmen about their complaints. From there maybe something will be done with campaign finance reform. But until enough people are outraged by this, nothing will happen, because candidates are happy to be receiving the mass amounts of money that come from their elections.
Many things in America are regulated in order to benefit the entirety of something. Regulating the elections is only a rational next step due to the way things are going. If there are no regulations, and things continue the way they are, come the next election when both parties have to pick an incumbent, we will be spending at least 10 billion dollars on the election. Most of that money will be for strictly campaigning. This is an obvious problem not many people want to address. If people knew the amounts of money that are really going towards this one election during this economy, I believe they would be outraged. Campaign finance reform is not the horror some politicians have led people to believe it is, as long as it is done properly.
In France no legal entities are allowed to give money to political candidates. Legal entities are also not allowed to donate to political parties or groups. They are not allowed to make any direct or indirect donations to political affairs (Campaign Finance: France). This eliminates the threat of corruption and buying an election. On the complete opposite side of the spectrum, in America, we have Super PACs which are allowed to donate and accept unlimited funds as long as they are indirect expenditures. In the 2012 election, outside spending for Super PACs totaled to $710,011,924 (Outside Spending). Super PACs were ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court Case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Political spending for corporations and unions is considered free speech and therefore protected by the constitution (Hebblethwaite par 5). This is a very different opinion from France which is more worried about keeping the elections clean rather than raising the most money.
There are some that believe, contribution limits and the shortening of the political campaign is limiting the rights of citizens or unconstitutional, but is not bribery or buying the election also unconstitutional? What they fail to notice is that a shortened campaign period would actually strengthen their freedom of speech, because the people would actually listen to what they say. There won’t be as long between the primaries and the debates will be closer together instead of drawn out like they are now. If candidates cannot buy airtime, then the election will be fair to all people running for president, rather than the ones with the deepest pockets. Instead it will be evenly distributed and shortened, similar to the campaigning in France (Crumley par 3). Lastly, limiting contribution amounts for Super PACs will not infringe on citizens’ rights. Despite the fact that corporations are now considered people, they should not have the same rights as people. If corporations spend less money on campaigns then they can use the money they saved to improve working conditions, hire new workers, or make new businesses. This will stimulate the economy and be an overall good thing.
I propose that the citizens of America, who are outraged by the ludicrous amounts of money being spent on an election instead of being put back into America, take up this cause of campaign finance reform. Tell your friends and family just what really goes on during elections. Where the money comes from and what they are doing with it. Once enough people are educated with the issue, hopefully they will feel the need to tell their congressmen about their complaints. From there maybe something will be done with campaign finance reform. But until enough people are outraged by this, nothing will happen, because candidates are happy to be receiving the mass amounts of money that come from their elections.
Many things in America are regulated in order to benefit the entirety of something. Regulating the elections is only a rational next step due to the way things are going. If there are no regulations, and things continue the way they are, come the next election when both parties have to pick an incumbent, we will be spending at least 10 billion dollars on the election. Most of that money will be for strictly campaigning. This is an obvious problem not many people want to address. If people knew the amounts of money that are really going towards this one election during this economy, I believe they would be outraged. Campaign finance reform is not the horror some politicians have led people to believe it is, as long as it is done properly.