Means, not Money: Campaign Finance Reform

[Ecuajey]

This commentary is by Luis Orlando Gallardo Rivera, a.k.a ReddPR on this board. I found this interesting so I wanted to post it, not wanting to wait for ReddPR's lazy a$$, lol.

I was reading an article on PRwow.com about campaign debts.

Candidates seem to care just more about how many posters they can put up in front of a voter's face as they do their stances on vital social and economic issues. Yes, I support campaign finance reform. Why? Because political competitions should be to see who has the best ideas, not the biggest wallets. It should be about an official's power to move (or be moved by) the people, not campaign donors. This is worse with American politicians (and I hate dipping into U.S. politics, here.) They'll blurt out "contribute!" on their official campaign website before they ask you to vote for them... not even that. They'll hold out their hands for pennies before even publishing clear and understandable stances on the issues. Campaigning is a business.

Now, what do I mean when I say that I support campaign finance reform? Does that mean that I think that the state should pay for politician's campaigns? Well, I'd prefer that than having corporations do it, but I think that we should concentrate more on giving means instead of money. One website sums it up well:

Americans are turned off on campaign politics. Regardless of how they might feel about the direction of the nation or their personal lives, they are disenchanted with elections. Large majorities believe that money has more influence on the outcome of elections than voters do, that candidates spend more time fighting amongst each other than talking about the issues, and that campaigns are more like theater than like serious efforts to address the nation's problems.

The mass utilization of public means of communication such as radio and TV, as seen in Brazil, could be opened up to during campaign periods so that candidates can broadcast their commercials, debates, and speeches free of charge. I'm sure it would be a whole lot less expensive if the public TV station were to free up x hours of airtime for campaigns each night than it would be to give public dollars to candidates so that they could by the same amount of time on private networks. On top of that, we have to audit, investigate, and give room for private contributions. The strain is obscured.

Enough people read newspapers, listen to the radio, or watch TV to rid the world of political posters. Especially since most of them don't mention a peep about the candidates stance on the issues. A party logo, a smile, a flag, and maybe (just MAYBE!) some lame slogan; "Bringing Change." If they ever do mention an important issue, "Jobs, Education, and Health," they wont elaborate on how they plan to do that ("Public investment, school vouchers, hospital privatization," for example; not that I support all those things.)

I think that balanced newspaper coverage and public media outlets dedicated to balanced political campaigns a month or two before elections is a lot more responsible, cost-efficient, clean, and fair to the people. Again people. Big business and big government should not give money, but means to campaigners. Instead of handing a candidate for mayor a million bucks, why not just secure him six or so hours on public TV and radio? Hell, give him webspace and a domain name or something.

From: Nutslapper.com