After my previous theological treatise it seemed like a good time to return to politics. Barack Obama's decision to forego public financing should certainly come as no surprise to anyone who follows politics. To be hamstrung by public financing when he has one of the greatest fund raising operations in history would make no sense. He would be doing a disservice to his supporters and the party if he did not take advantage of every opportunity to be successful in the campaign. It might have been nice if he had simply said circumstances change, and it no longer makes sense for me to stick with my original plan to accept public financing; but it is clear that if he is a serious candidate and intends to win he has no other reasonable option.
However, it does not take a genius to figure out that there is something wrong with the way we finance political campaigns, especially presidential campaigns. The money spent on the primary campaigns this year is simply astronomical. It cannot be a good thing. I know that the Republicans have taken a strong stand on campaign financing as a freedom of speech issue. I am not a legal scholar so I cannot argue this point. But clearly something must be done. Considering money being spent on wars, natural disasters, health care, filling one's gas tank, etc. etc., the idea that millioms and millions of dollars should be collected and spent to elect a candidate is just wrong. Beyond the presidential campaigns one could take a look at the senatorial, congressional, and gubernatorial races; which makes one wonder just how much of our gross national product is about politics.
I do believe that public financing is an important part of the answer. I would go back to the old days of providing equal time for all serious candidates in media coverage. Also, I believe networks and TV stations should be required to provide a certain amount of free time to candidates as a public service. The campaign also needs to be limited to a much shorter period of time, as in Great Britain. If any of these ideas are unconstitutional then maybe we need an amendment to the constitution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have no problem with Obama foregoing public financing - for better or worse, a political race is a game to be won or lost and one of the deciding factors is who has the most money. Foregoing public financing gives Obama a better chance of winning. However, it is times like these that I think our nation misses Mr. Tim Russert who would put the time in to dig up a handful of quotes from Obama on how he supports public financing and would vow to accept public financing if McCain did the same thing. And then Mr. Russert would, as only he could, probe Obama for why he seems to have changed his mind.
Obama may take a little heat over forgoing public financing in the short term, but in the long term I think it's a good strategic move - the money he'll secure will far out weigh the short term damage.
Much more important than Obama's decision is the point you made about just how much money is spent on electing our leaders. It is a realy scary question that you bring up: how much of our GDP is tied to politics? I saw an article in the New Yok Times today that said the Service Employees International Union has a $75 million election strategy. That's just one union. I agree with you that something is wrong with the system. I'm afraid I don't have the solution, but there must be something more important to getting elected than simply being a good fund raiser.
Patrick,
Thanks for your comments. I agree completely. I believe the elections in England follow a much more sensible pattern, but we would probably need legislative or constitutional changes to make it work here.
Pat's Post
Post a Comment