7 of 18

Yes

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 4

win an election rather than just be in one, is granted by money. In 2004, 95% of the House races and 91% of the Senate races went to the candidate that spent the most money. That money currently does not come from "we, the people," so it should be no shocker who they will more faithfully represent, their constituents or their funders. When they need to be re-elected, who's support will they look for first?

Naturally those funding the current situation voice a lot of fear about loosing this right. But what about free speech? If I'm a multi-billionaire and I feel strongly about a candidate, why shouldn't I be allowed to give my money to whomever I choose? But we've already answered this question. It's the same reason we no longer vote based on our wealth or property. When we allow people to express their support with their wealth it gives those with more wealth an unequal voice. Obviously the only people who like that idea are wealthy.

In particular the spectacle of candidates asking for money for television advertising seems the most surreal of predicaments to me. Since we, the people, the government, society or however you want to word it, have sold the right to broadcast on our airwaves to corporations, we now must endure constant begging for money from our candidates, some of whom we actually support and like but would just prefer not to be constantly hassled for money by, so they can then give our money to the wealthy corporations who bought those broadcast rights from us. Wouldn't it just be easier and better for everyone (except perhaps the corporation that owns the station) if we just made the right to broadcast on our airwaves contingent on also providing an occasional vehicle for our political discourse? We can even knock some off the licensing fee if they whine too hard. Actually, we already do this. We just use that free airtime to broadcast anti-drug messages instead of campaign messages.

If you read the various yes and no responses to this question, the debate seems to be around what, if anything, we should or shouldn't do about it and by whom. We fairly universally agree that our current system has obvious problems and deficiencies. The no responses tend to present fears with public funding that have already been solved. Check out publicampaign.org/video. Regardless if they have been solved, I believe these issues are solvable, and we should not choose fear of making it worse as an excuse to do nothing.

Why? Because public funding of elections will

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next page >>

Add your voice

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