Different Slants

Corruption in U.S. politics has, from the citizen’s perspective, been growing over the past few decades. That is not to say it is a new phenomenon but, it has become increasingly blatant in recent years as our elected officials place greater emphasis on pleasing special interests than they do on good governance.

The root cause, as you may have guessed is money.   However, it may not always be that politicians are trying to line their own pockets. Some politician do succumb to greed but, for the most part, they get caught.  The bigger problem is campaign financing.

In recent interviews with politicians declaring their candidacies for president (a large sample size), many stated that their decision to run or not hinged on their ability to raise money. They, on average, felt they needed $20 million to compete in the primary elections. Why do they need so much money and where does it come from?

In 2000, the average cost of winning a federal senate race was $7.2 million.  It seems the bulk of the money goes to television advertising.  In 2006, a 30 second ad during a newscast on a single Philadelphia network affiliate, costs about $2,100.  Costs in other areas may be higher or lower depending on the market.  The total costs of the 2004 federal elections (presidential and congressional) is estimated at around $4 billion. About two-thirds of the money was spent on media.  That was 11 times more money than was spent in the 1976 election.

The huge cost of campaigning has resulted in politicians spending more time fund raising, to get and keep their jobs, and less time  doing their jobs.  It also puts them into much closer contact with large contributers, individuals, companies and organizations, than they would otherwise come.  It is human nature to become like the people you hang out with so, even an honest politician is likely to be influenced by his lager campaign contributers.  And the mere fact that there are large contributers raises the level of cynicism the public hold towards its elected officials.  But, what to do about it?

To date, campaign finance reform has focused on two areas: limiting the amount of money that can be contributed, and limiting the amount of money that can be spent.  Both raise constitutional issues of free speech.  Neither has worked well.   Spending limits are voluntary.  When they were first enacted, a few candidates adhered to them.  Few do now.  Contribution limits have been easy to work around.  The laws that enact them are neccesarily full of loopholes.  Finally, the status quo favors encumbents and it is the encumbents who make the rules.  Few in congress are likely to support changes that might cost them the next election.

So what would work?

Election costs are driven, primarily, by television costs.  If we can not limit spending or contributions, lets try reducing costs.  The airwaves are a national resource.  Lets take them back and make them available to candidates for federal office.  I propose that during federal elections, broadcasters, both radio and television be required to provide a certain amount of air time to the top 3 to 5 candidates for each office.  The overall amount of time provided should be more than anyone wants to listen to.  Perhaps as much as 50% of the broadcast day.  Each candidate should be given spots of no less than 5 minutes each to talk about whatever they want.  The minimum length is to get beyond sound bites.  No spot can run for more than one week.  If a candidate cannot find something new to say once a week, they are not qualified for office.  The broadcasters will need some type of compensation for expenses and lost revenue but we can afford that.

When politicians do not need special interest money to gain and keep office, they will be free to do what is best for the country, not what is best for their contributers.  It will also make public office more accessible to people who are not already wealthy.

What do you think?