by Angela S. Young

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

The US government already has its fingers in too many pies. We need less government intervention, not more. Election campaigns should be funded by those who wish to enter the race and their backers, not the U.S. government.

Allowing the government to fund election campaigns would put them in the pocket of one candidate over another. Which candidate would they fund: the current politician in office or the one seeking to unseat them? Would it ever be possible for this to happen without bias? Or, would they have to fund anyone and everyone who wished to run for office? Given government backing, we might have many more people seeking office who would not do it if they had to spend their own money. What are the limits? Who decides these limits? Who keeps track of how the funds are spent? Who decides who gets to run? Do they set a limit of only so many allowed to seek office? If so, is it first come, first served, or will we have to set up some kind of criteria to select candidates?

These questions cannot be answered positively in regard to government funding of election campaigns. There are many ways for a candidate to find funding for a run for office. The U.S. government needs to step back and stay out of it in every way. While an incumbent may have certain political advantages, adding federal funding would give them an unfair advantage over other candidates, or it would result in absolute chaos.

It is more than self-evident that federal funding of election campaigns would be a bad idea. Therefore, it's a wonder the democrats have not already tried to promote it! The government has enough things to fund, and enough things to keep them busy. Let's save the elections from them by keeping our elections funded by those willing to do what it takes to raise the money they need to run for office.

Learn more about this author, Angela S. Young.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.