by Will Kester

Created on: July 18, 2007   Last Updated: March 19, 2008

The role of government, in an ideal world, is to level the playing field so that individual efforts will have equal opportunities to succeed, in all things, not just in election campaigns. The role of government is to prevent abuses, in business or in elections. The role of government is not to decide who should be elected or how they should run their campaign. So, how can government perform well by providing campaign funds to candidates? By spending our tax dollars to fund campaigns? It can't.

What it can do, is provide a level playing field and equal opportunity for all candidates, and prevent abuses. That doesn't require public funding, however. It will take some serious campaign reforms, which will probably never happen. The people who are required to make the reforms are the same ones who benefit from the current system, so why would they reform the system? Because we, the voters, insist on it.

There is a large movement in the liberal forum to move to public funding. The idea is that, then, anyone who wants to run for election will have an equal chance of succeeding, bringing in more honest and qualified candidates, that have been left out of the system, previously. I say they are wrong in their assumptions. It will bring more candidates that are less honest and qualified, who will be drawn to public funds like moths to a flame.

What we need to do is to limit campaign spending, allow more access to popular media for less popular candidates, and make soft money illegal. Shorten the campaign and fund raising time allowed, to a few months. No one is allowed to raise money until a few months before the race, allow all the announced candidates a forum to communicate their message, on television, radio, and in the press, and then let the people vote soon after that, based on who made the most sense on the subjects that they find most important. Then it is over until a few months before the next race.

It may not seem appropriate to mention on this subject, but I think it is relevant. I support changing the presidential term to one, six-year term. That way, the president won't spend their first term campaigning for their next term. The president wouldn't need campaign contributions while in office. The presidents, who do get second terms, usually, are under consideration for impeachment by the sixth year in office, anyway, and then they would be out.

Public funds has never improved conditions in my experience, only created new problems. Public funds create bureaucracies, impede competition, and promote greed, corruption, and waste. So, why do we think we need more of that?

Learn more about this author, Will Kester.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.