Politics, News & Issues >
US Elections (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US government help fund election campaigns?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 30% | 131 votes | Total: 438 votes | |
| No | 70% | 307 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesElections are the bread and butter of our Constitutional Democratic Republic. In practice, elections are very expensive, especially in the modern world where candidates, who wish to compete, must raise a significant amount of money. In turn, many potential donators see an opportunity to support the candidates who will be in favor of their views; therefore, elections can also undermine democracy by adding a price tag to representation. This means government must do something to level the playing field and augment the legitimacy of elections.
Public funding of campaigns is one element in minimizing stacked elections and improving the accessibility for less financially supported candidates. Of course, candidates running in everything from township supervisor to Presidential elections cannot have their campaigns fully funded by public moneys as no country has unlimited resources. In all, a balance between fund raising and publicly funding where the cost burden is shared by all taxpayers and political supporters would be beneficial as well as prudent.
Furthermore, publicly funded elections would certainly not prevent stacked elections. During the 2008 Presidential election, GOP nominee John McCain opted to take public funding as promised, yet now President Obama declined public support in favor of fundraising despite a similar pledge. Aside from disliking asking people for money, Senator McCain could not have raised as much money as Obama while the Republican Party had enough funding to outpace Democratic spending if the President took Public Funds. Meanwhile other noncandidate campaign ads, like 527 Ads, negate the benefit of public funding.
Simply limiting the ads noncandidate groups can use would violate those people's First Amendment Right in the case of US citizens. In 2002, the -McCain Feingold Act tried to level the playing field by requiring campaigners to disclose donators and limited donations to $2400 per person among other provisions. Although this does help unveil those who try to influence politics as well as force candidates to rely more heavily on broad bases of support, the legal and accounting requirements discourage less known, less financially supported candidates in local elections from running.
Moreover, all levels of the US government should help fund political campaigns, but taxpayers certainly cannot bear the full burden. Meanwhile, the actions of individuals and groups beyond the campaigns of candidates limit the effectiveness public funding. As the First Amendment must be respected to ensure elections are democratic, there is only so much legislators can do to legitimize elections and minimize the influence of wealthy donors. Certainly, efforts should continue to mitigate undermining influences and reform how we do that, but the best defense is to provide voters with credible facts as well as quality candidates.
Learn more about this author, Matthew J. Geiger.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The US government should NOT help fund election campaigns. It would only make the problem worse!
Without a doubt, current election campaigns favor those with money - the elite. There are plenty of intelligent, passionate, service-minded people who could serve their country in an elected position. However, if the money isn't there, it just won't happen.
Part of the problem is that campaign spending has gotten out of hand. Candidates spend an astronomical amount of money trying to outdo the competition and get the attention of the electorate. It hasn't always been this way, but a few things have contributed to the current state of things.
The electorate has become much more distracted over the years. So much competes for our attention now and we are inclined to give in to the distraction. We are not as interested or invested in campaigns and elections. Many of us have become disenfranchised, often feeling like our vote or our opinions don't make much of a difference anyway.
Additionally, the cost of advertising has gone up - way up. I spent the better part of ten years as a media planner at an advertising agency - buying time on television and radio, space in magazines, newspapers and internet for my clients. Many media offer discounted "political rates" for campaign season. These are the lowest rates the media outlet can offer but even these rates can be expensive. I saw rates go up just in the years I bought media. Advertising budgets that were once quite adequate just don't compete anymore.
Not only does it cost more to get ads on all the "best" TV networks and publications but it costs to get the best ads too. No more simple ads showing a nice picture of the candidate with some text giving us a summary of what he's all about. Ads have become much more sophisticated. The "sophisticated", media-savvy electorate will hardly look at a candidate who cannot provide ads that meet the high standards we've come to expect in our advertising.
So all of this means that the candidates with money are the only ones with real access to today's elections. Could the government change this? Sure. And campaign reform is trying to change some of this. However, the government should NOT help fund campaigns. The American people pay for enough already!
Our tax dollars should not be allocated for outrageously expensive advertising campaigns unless they intend to let us have some say in how the money is spent. Not likely, but it is our money they'd be using after all - call it government funding or not - it still comes from the taxpayers. That won't work so what will? I think the government, the candidates and the country would be better off limiting the funds allowed in a campaign and putting everyone on a level playing field.
This could be incredibly valuable in judging candidates! On a level playing field, how will each candidate manage the money they're allowed to spend? Which one will have the best strategy? Candidates who can navigate public relations, advertising, politics and the media with success and integrity on a limited budget would certainly prove that they are worthy of the position they are running for.
I am aware that the Supreme Court basically declared campaign spending limits unconstitutional in 1976 with their Buckley v. Valeo decision. They said that spending limits violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Court stated that: "A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached."
In other words, campaign spending limits would keep candidates from saying all that they might want to say. But how many potential candidates are kept from speaking at all because they cannot keep up financially? One could argue that there is a "quantity of expression" and "depth of exploration" that is being missed entirely because only the elite can participate. Where's the freedom of speech in that? Only the rich are free to speak because they are they only ones that can afford it!
The government should not help fund election campaigns because there is no way the candidates without money could be elevated to the status of those with money. The amount required from the government (and its taxpayers!) to give a candidate a chance against the elite would be ridiculous. Until the intelligent, passionate, service-minded candidate without money is allowed the same chance to campaign as those with money, government funding would be useless anyway. Perhaps someday we'll all have the same freedom of speech that's provided for people with money. We can hope!
Learn more about this author, Lorie Grant DeWorken.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Elections (Other)
- Should Congress create laws to prevent political mudslinging in US elections?
- Is eighteen too young to vote?
- Should Senators resign their seats to run for President?
- Should there be limits on contributions to political campaigns by individuals?
- Should Congress have the power to vote no-confidence and remove a US president from office?
- Is it ever too early to run for president?
