"It's time to end the wealth primary in American elections and let candidates compete on their ideas, not the size of their war chests." - Stuart Comstock-Gay, Executive Director of the National Voting Rights Institute.
These words exemplify a growing problem in the United States: that of campaign spending. Over the recent years, the amount of money spent on political campaigns has grown exponentially. Expensive, flashy commercials have influenced people to vote the wrong way.
As we approach the 2008 presidential election, we must realize that voters are influenced most by the candidate who spends the most. Instead of looking at the truth behind their eye-catching propaganda, we simply go for the one that catches our attention the most. This takes away the element of democracy in the elections. We each have a say in our government, but cannot make an honest decision if our eyes are blinded by commercials. If candidates were spending an equal amount of money, it could be fair, but when one spends more than the other, we go to the biggest spender, which is ironic in light of America's national deficit.
Also with increased spending comes increased mud slinging and attacks between candidates. Political runners spend money not only making themselves look good, but demeaning their opponents as well. When one considers that most derogatory propaganda isn't even fully true, it is sad to think of how our political candidates are being elected due to expensive lies.
The best way to combat this problem is to limit campaign spending, forcing them to concentrate more on the issues at hand. After all, is it a democracy if you can buy your way to the top?
You're not totally right. I mean, look at Romney. He spent buckets more than the rest, and he's already out. However, I do agree with you that campaign spending should be limited. One could argue that limiting campaign spending infringes on their personal freedom.
Not just that, but look at Huckabee. He had - and continues to have - almost no money, yet for a brief time he was at the top of the polls and is the only other candidate left in the race (save Ron Paul) other than McCain. I'm really not so sure that money is really as big of a deal in politics as people make it out to be given the Romney and Huckabee phenomena.
Having said that, I am strongly against campaign finance reform. I believe McCain-Feingold to be the gravest infringement upon freedom of speech since the Alien and Sedition acts in the early days of the republic. I consider campaign donations to be a form of political speech, and for the government to go ahead and limit it...I think that's wrong, a gross infringement upon an individual's freedom of speech, and a wrongful extension of government power and authority.
Instead of all these restrictions we should reconsider the most basic of restrictions: requiring that politicians make available a list of all their campaign donors and their amounts and put it on their website as well as a secure government database so that voters can check them out, and political opponents can also potentially use it as fodder against their candidates as well, both of which would keep them honest in terms of funds and whatnot.
"Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan