There is a simple solution to long and costly campaigns but the foxes in the henhouse are too busy to notice.
Political candidates such as Texas Gov. George W. Bush keep raising incredible amounts of money and it's no surprise that we frequently hear remarks about the growing "orgy of fund-raising."
We hear about hard money and soft money and various ways to funnel it into allegedly productive channels; staffs are regularly being increased to make obscene electioneering totals even more staggering.
All the while, of course, politicos keep telling us how they want campaign reform while at the same time devising new ways to fatten their war chests. We get lip service about altering the system but the people best-empowered to accomplish that decline to do so for fear of unfeathering their personal nests. It's a classic case of foxes in the henhouse with no courage being displayed.
It really doesn't take a 200-level IQ or a Mensa genius to figure out the best way to change this sorry picture. It's a three-ply solution so simple that even an ordinary citizen can understand it:
1. Set a firm limit on campaign periods.
2. Set an enforceable limit on how much someone can spend in seeking an office.
3. Establish an agency or some type of czar to monitor what happens and provide the power to enforce items Nos. 1 and 2.
There is absolutely no reason any election campaigns, including those of George W. Bush for the presidency or Hillary Clinton for the U.S. Senate, should run longer than six months. If candidates cannot get their messages across in that amount of time, they don't have much to offer. Meanwhile they should concentrate on business like being a governor or first lady and not use their positions for bully pulpits and "listening" ventures.
Monetary amounts would have to vary according to the offices in question. For example, it's bound to cost more to seek the presidency than a city commission or school board post. But realistic limits can be placed on the spending for both and for everything in between.
Then the limits should be strictly enforced, and if there are violations, stiff penalties should be assessed, including disqualification for office by the worst violators. Punishment for violation of spending limits would likely be the most difficult facet to enforce. Once elected, would a guilty offender be expected to vacate office?
But long campaigns keep proliferating beyond reason and high dollar amounts for prestigious offices keep rising almost by the day. The general public is sick of it all, distressed by the waste of time and finances that could go for better purposes. All politicians have to do to understand that is to ask the frustrated citizenry.
The trouble is, the political powers which benefit most from unlimited campaign periods and spending are so busy taking advantage of their privileged positions, by trying to stay in office, that nothing happens.
Such activity gives the term "orgy" an even worse connotation in most minds.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.