Campaign Reform NOW!

MILLIONS have been spent, not on fixing social security, not on health care, not on education, not even on national security or oil…but on a blasted political campaign and I think it’s obscene.
I know I may sound shrill but it’s wasted money.

To many of us this election feels doubly important. If you have been paying attention to campagn 2008, you heard the figure, 20 million campaign dollars. While I am heartened by the interest everyone has in this next election and it’s really cool that so many people are awake, listening and supportive of the candidates, couldn’t we do something more meaningful with that money?

It may seem naive but there has to be a way to stop the insane spending. I know it costs a lot to fly all over hell meeting people, to put your campaign staff up in hotels and to pay the ground staff (who are not volunteer), plus you have to rent halls for speeches, cars to drive staff to and fro and also create print and direct marketing campaigns as well as TV spots. But why, for instance, should candidates have to spend so much money on TV commercials? Couldn’t the networks create a special fee schedule with price breaks for political campaigns so it levels the playing field?

Come to think of it, why isn’t there a government sponsored on-demand political network that only runs political stuff like commercials, debates, interviews, political polls, voting tabulations? Viewers would be able to find everything in one central place, watch the commercials and the debates when they wanted to. They watch over and over if they wanted so as to have time to make up their minds. If the channel was centralized and on-demand, it would save time and effort for the voters. NO EXCUSES. If the network were government sponsored special fees could be set for advertising, thereby saving money for the candidates.

I have a kookie idea. What would happen if a limit was set on the amount a candidate can spend, say, oh, I dunno 10 million (which is still obscene). Candidates are still allowed to fund raise but then who ever raised more than 10 mill would get so many extra points come election time and the additional money would then go toward a preditermined set of charities, i.e.: literacy programs, medical research, better roads and bridges, homeless shelters, alternative energy research…the list goes on and on. Each election different charities or a new fund raiser voted upon by congress could be chosen. OR even better, in true democratic tradition, at primary time, and later for the presidential candidates, we THE PEOPLE could vote from a list and what do you know?…have our say as to where the additional money raised would be spent.

It occurs to me that if all the networks KNEW candidates only had so much money to spend they would be more inclined to give candidates a price break or risk losing advertising revenue to the networks who are willing to play ball. *NOTE: If there is less money to spend on commercials and ads (print or otherwise) we, THE PEOPLE, MIGHT get more informed, intelligent choices in the messages candidates spend money on and send out…

“…you may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope some day you’ll join us…” Lennon

…Just a thought I caught flying by, what do you think?

~ by veritas07 on July 6, 2008.