Whoaaaa, that picture is intense. Maybe a bit over the top but it does make you think so it stays.
Doing my lounged-out Sunday afternoon internet surfing, I came across these two gems. An excellent article about campaign finance reform written by the non-suspecting and totally awesome Dave Eggers and The New York Times Magazine’s “Annual Year in Ideas.” My list of favorite/funniest “ideas” below. But first things first, my little take and admonishment of campaign financing, since tis the season of collecting….
Now I am no political scientist with the historical knowledge to speak to the creation and abuse of campaign financing, but I do have a bit of an understanding of the current system. And with the state of affairs being what they are in campaign finance, it is quite possible to hold it responsible for what has lead us to this lackluster pool of presidential contenders. Not to echo too much of Mr. Egger’s words, but as the saying goes, “Money is the root of all evil” ( I would argue that power is more the true culprit and money being a close second but that phrase does the job of serving my point) . With 2008 campaigning raising attaining record highs, its obvious how essential money raising has become to deciding who is and who is not electable. But in that situation many problems arise. First and foremost, a smaller and worse list of candidates is made. Anyone not raising the large amounts of money is essentially slowly escorting themselves from the contest (see CNN for hard numbers). Dems: Richardson, Edwards, Biden, etc. GOP: Thompson, Paul (not the best example, I know), and McCain. Worst part being is McCain is the one person who takes campaign finance reform to heart and was behind the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. Even McCain, the most decent republican candidate and someone I could actually see myself voting for has bent to power and fund raising by altering his public stances and views. Essentially private campaign financing gives us less options and less quality options. One of the best parts of democracy is the freedom of choice and entertaining many options is part of that. No one with the power (read: big business) and/or money has any real incentive or desire to drastically change the way things currently work. There aren’t many people who work hard to put themselves at a disadvantage. Money pays and molds the candidate into money’s interests and beliefs. This is the second issue with private campaign financing, the way candidates change their views and mindful ideas for change based on who helps get them into the presidential office. The successful candidate enters office with a shoulder full of debt and favors to be repaid. This sorry excuse for an election system leaves us with shoddy candidates who lack proper honesty and a genuine desire to help others. Every candidate has their debt to donors. Its an almost undeniable truth.
Like I said I’m no expert on the whole matter and therefore don’t have an expert opinion to provide our best solution but let me at very least make a recommendation. Limitless private campaign raising obviously has a lot of holes leaving room for corruption. Why not a capped private campaign raising formula of sorts? Say no candidate can accept and use more than say $30 million over the course of their election campaign. Seems to level the playing field. Any problems with that? More people will be inclined to give money to the smaller names who might otherwise have been deemed not electable due to being tremendously out-raised. Options people, isn’t that what life is about?
My favorite/funniest “ideas”:
