by Xelan Bonn

Created on: April 11, 2009   Last Updated: April 13, 2009

Public Campaign Laws And Financing Would Improve Our Democracy

Imagine electing folks for their ideals, character, leadership, and even wisdom instead of party politics and the influences of money. Imagine reducing the cost for campaign financing by over 90 percent while increasing candidate choice and access. Most people cannot see this version of American democracy because we have been habituated to our current system, which oozes with a variety of corrupting influences.

Today, when someone wants to run for, say, Congress, they must secure enough signatures and/or friends or allies in the party to be nominated, then raise enough funds from the public and private business sector to make a solid run. More often than not, money buys wins.

With increased money, candidates have increased resources to get their word or position out to the electorate that will ultimately decide the election's fate. Typically, the candidate with the most money wins by virtue of having reached out further and longer into the electorate than the opposition candidate; not always, but more often than not, money is the key factor in political outcomes.

Party members do not seek to waste efforts or funds so they vet their candidates toward ensuring they have a suitable platform, but, most importantly, an ability to raise money. Once a selection is made, the candidate is let loose to run for office and try to garner as much party and general electorate support as possible.

What all this ultimately means is ideals, character, leadership, and wisdom are rarely the deciding force behind whether a person can enter the candidacy realm and thus survive long enough to win the election. Ergo, if money could be eliminated as the key influencer of the election process, then it seems likely that candidates would more often be selected based on their ideals, character, leadership, and wisdom.

The first obstacle to eliminating money from the election process is the First Amendment. The US Supreme Court says money talks, literally. Therefore, anyone with money can speak their mind by placing that money into their candidate's hand. What the court failed to distinguish was that entities, such as corporations, are also treated like humans. Even if they are transnational corporations with no major allegiance or significant ties to the US, they get to speak. The court also failed by not recognizing that too much money turned into political voice from one source is also corrupting for democracy.

If one voice, by

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>