The campaign season is in full swing and, as usual, money is at the heart of the ability to reach voters with a message. A recent article in The Atlantic highlights the issue of campaign contribution reform as an endless cycle that ends up doing nothing to fix the problem. As a prime example, in spite of more and more regulation,
“Since 1974, total congressional campaign spending has gone from $77 million an election cycle to $1.8 billion (in 2010). You decide whether that sounds like success.“
For the cynical, money contributed to a candidate equals access. More money buys more and better access. I call this cynical because, at the end of the day, every elected official is accountable at the ballot box. If voters continue to re-elect people they think are being bought by special interests, how are government regulations going to stop it? If these cynics really wanted to point out spurious behavior, they should point the finger at the voting public.
Granted, an incumbent has a huge advantage because they can grab free media time in the normal course of their duties. Then again, if an elected official is doing the peopleʻs work and gets seen on TV, is that necessarily a bad thing? And, if they are passing and defending laws that only benefit those who contributed money to their campaigns, isnʻt it the responsibility of the voter to recognize the breach of trust? Shouldnʻt an opponent take the opportunity to use this as a campaign strategy to show the public how they would do better?
The issue doesnʻt just apply to the presidential race. It affects races at the state and county level too. That just adds another layer of complexity when federal, state, and city rules are not consistent. Again, it is up to the voter to pay attention to where money is coming from, how it is spent, and who would benefit from the actions of an elected official. Who said being a responsible voter was easy?
So That's Life?
Campaigns and Money
08/01/2012The campaign season is in full swing and, as usual, money is at the heart of the ability to reach voters with a message. A recent article in The Atlantic highlights the issue of campaign contribution reform as an endless cycle that ends up doing nothing to fix the problem. As a prime example, in spite of more and more regulation,
“Since 1974, total congressional campaign spending has gone from $77 million an election cycle to $1.8 billion (in 2010). You decide whether that sounds like success.“
For the cynical, money contributed to a candidate equals access. More money buys more and better access. I call this cynical because, at the end of the day, every elected official is accountable at the ballot box. If voters continue to re-elect people they think are being bought by special interests, how are government regulations going to stop it? If these cynics really wanted to point out spurious behavior, they should point the finger at the voting public.
Granted, an incumbent has a huge advantage because they can grab free media time in the normal course of their duties. Then again, if an elected official is doing the peopleʻs work and gets seen on TV, is that necessarily a bad thing? And, if they are passing and defending laws that only benefit those who contributed money to their campaigns, isnʻt it the responsibility of the voter to recognize the breach of trust? Shouldnʻt an opponent take the opportunity to use this as a campaign strategy to show the public how they would do better?
Posted in commentary | Leave a Comment »