Campaign Spending Reform

Okay, I am on my soap box again about campaign spending. Not that I have seen anything in the media about it again, it is just that I am hearing about everyone gearing up for re-election and the like and know that it is going to be a media blitz again.

I would really like to get a Bill submitted to Washington that would completely reform how we go about allowing candidates to campaign. I have posted about this before:

http://kiss-politics.blogspot.com/2010/10/campaign-reform-well-where-are.html
http://kiss-politics.blogspot.com/2010/10/campaigning-what-crock.html

I have long thought that the way we have our campaign laws have no real effect on the problem that I see.

Issues:

• Only those that are rich or very well connected get elected - in order to get elected you have to know someone, or have a lot of money to spend on barraging the public into knowing your name.
• Too much time is wasted on negative campaigning - most voters really have no idea what the candidates actually can do to fix problems, only that the other candidate is bad for ___ and ___ reasons.
• The public has no real way of telling really who could get things done or who is just blowing smoke.

Okay, so enough with the problems... what can we do about it? Here are my thoughts, and I would love to get your feedback and opinion:

First of all, set the amount that can be spent to a reasonable amount. Let's say $25,000. I know that there will be a lot of politicians that will say that, it cannot be done for that, well here is how I propose that it is taken care of.

• Each candidate gets a Bus and a support vehicle to tour the country, these are provided and so much in gas to get around.
• Each candidate gets a few central locations to debate the issues in front of potential voters in each of the states (could be multiple depending on the population). Each candidate has dates that they are to present their ideas and solutions.
• Media companies need to provide a set amount of airtime that is available to each candidate for actual campaign ads. In turn then the candidates need to be wise with their airtime and make the best use of it. This amount should be set and all candidates have the same amount. Also, media companies would cover all debates in their entirety without commentating, only coverage of the event, and verifying accuracy of the comments made by the candidates.

Second, Each candidate can do fund raisers over the set amount, but this money is to be put into programs that they start while on the campaign. For example if the candidate is into job growth and job creation, then the money they raise should be put into their program that will begin to create these jobs and the like. Then the candidates need to report on the progress of their programs and how they are helping. If the candidate is working on a program for helping the homeless then they create a pilot program and put the fundraising money into that. In each case, the voters could see and evaluate the effectiveness of the candidate in getting programs and solutions created and executed.

Third, each candidate would be able to get additional money from the party they are associated with (up to a limited amount, say $100,000) for additional campaign needs or to put toward their programs as they see fit for those candidates that the party feels has their best interest in mind. once they are the only candidate that will run on that party ticket for that position.

In this process it would really be up to the Party that the candidate is associated with to pay the additional that might be needed to go all the way, but it would be in an amount that is not obscene but reasonable. The 25K would be there for a person to run to be a party nominated candidate. In each case though, there would be an equal playing field for the campaign. Since each candidate would have a very finite amount of airtime and funds, they would need to get creative on the best use and the bast way to get their message across. Instead of a process that rewards the person that can spend the most, it would reward the person that has the best ability to make the most from very little. I would much rather see that in a candidate than the ability to spend and spend. We would also get a chance to see them in action, and of course the media could report on progress of programs and projects, so those candidates with the programs making headlines could get more airtime, but the media would have to be kept in check to make certain that they are reporting on the facts and outcomes, and not hearsay and conjecture, or because they are being paid under the table by the candidate or the political party (campaign watchdogs to keep this in check).

This in my humble opinion could work... yes there needs to be more thought in all of the situations that could come up and how to handle those, but it is a starting point and could have the kinks worked out.

Sure would be nice that in the new Presidential Election coming up that we would hear of the candidates accomplishments, and how they are actually fixing the problems, rather than ad after ad on how the other guy sucks.

Let me know your thoughts