8 of 23

No

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

the population into believing that if they just support the candidate aligned with the most congruent perspective consistent with their own, things will get better. In reality, things really will get better for the candidate, however, the remainder of the populace will merely experience the same old adages from past practice.

The practice of subsidizing election campaigns be it with private or public funding resources merely serves to create an obedient candidate to a monetary master. In this scenario, we are unlikely to ever really receive a candidate without objectives and priorities that remain focused on the wants and wishes of their financial master.

Perhaps, the suitable alternative requires all candidates to receive opportunities for conveying their perspectives without financial fetters governing the opportunity. This may necessitate an alternative means of conveying messages and slogans to the public however; it certainly does not involve the use of private or public funds for the purpose of persuasion.

In any case, election reform would most likely better serve a greater majority of the population. In order to accomplish this objective, the focus will need to be oriented towards ideals and away from financial objectives and priorities. In a country that can easily dump billions into foreign policy without completely eliminating problems within our own borders and affecting our own constituents, this is unlikely to become a reality in the near future.

Learn more about this author, Darrin A Yarbrough.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Should the US government help fund election campaigns??
We want to hear your view. Write now!