In this day and age, our politicians spend far too much of their time looking for campaign contributions and not enough communicating with their constituents. Far too many campaigns (like CA-50) spend an obscene amount of money per vote they receive. This not only give the appearance of corruption (and all to often the reality as well), but it shapes the kinds of candidates that run for office. Too many of our candidates are rich or very well connected.
We need to seek solutions, and ones which improve politicians’ ability to communicate to their constituents, and decrease the time they spend begging for money. As I have mentioned before, we should consider requiring television and radio stations to provide advertising to candidates as part of the broadcast license. We should also reduce the connection between money and access, as well as reduce the contribution limits.
I am actually quite sympathetic to the idea that we should be able to give our money to anyone we want, as recently claimed by the Supreme Court and discussed on the front page in orange. I am much less sympathetic to the unfettered right of our representatives to receive money. According to polling, 74% of American would support a public campaign financing.
I would start where much of the money is spent, on television. Other nations, such have England, have party political broadcasts. Each party is provided with about five minutes of airtime as part of the licensing requirement for the radio and television.
This has a major advantage over our current tradition of a 30 second spot because it actually gives politicians enough time to speak to the people in something other than quick sound-bites. Hopefully this could provide a platform for improving the quality of our discourse.
We own the airways and we licence them under the conditions that the Government decides. It is not particularly unreasonable to include say twenty minutes of airtime during the primary and general election season as part of that licence. Perhaps we could reduce their fees in order to compensate.
There would of course be details to work out. How much time and what time of day should it be? Would that time be able to be broken into smaller chucks, would it have to be? Which parties would qualify for free public time? Should a public commission regulate what is said?
Actually, I would be in favour of enforcing truth in advertising for political candidates and action committees. An even membered committee which is properly bipartisan. It would also need to move very quickly, certainly before election day and potentially before each commercial or broadcast is aired. Although I don’t like them smear campaigns should be legal, but untruthes need to be prevented or corrected by an informed, unbiased, respected body.
We need to create a system which frees our leaders from begging for money, and reducing the influence of wealth on who can run and win elections. I am tired of being asked for money which I cannot afford. With or without legal reform I believe it would be a better use of most politicians time to spend it talking to voters rather than begging for money. It is certainly a better use of their time to spend it leading our nation and working on legislation rather than seeking financing for their next campaign. It would leave less room for corruption if politicos did not need such a large amount of cash in order to win their next election.
It is essential that we continue to reform the way our politics are financed. We need to free our politicians to lead and govern, reduce the appearance and reality of corruption, and ensure that all of us have access to politicians and the government.
