Ask a political person about how to judge a candidate's viability, electability and potential and often, very often, the first criteria they use is the ability to raise money. That means the willingness to sit for four, six, eight hours a day, in a room, making phone calls asking for money.
This is probably the number one criteria most beltway politicians judge candidates to be good or not.
Let's take this a bit further. What do they use the money they raise for? The number one cost of a campaign is TV advertising. It can suck up millions of dollars.
So, what we have is a bizarre, obscene reality-- the number one criteria for a candidate for public office is his or her ability to buy TV advertising. This is not bizarre. It is insane. But it's the exact model that the DCCC, it's head Rahm Emanuel and the leaders of the both parties in Washington embrace. One problem. It's not what the majority of Americans want.
The OpEdNews/Zogby poll we took a few weeks ago found that a majority of the public wants the money taken out of politics. They want qualified candidates to receive a fixed amount of money from the government.
Even more interesting, and this is a finding you'll never see a TV Network sponsored poll ask is that a majority, 65% of voters, support requiring TV and radio shows to provide FREE air time to candidates in elections. (See question 21 of our poll. All cross-tabs are here.
Put those two together-- fixed funding for candidates and free air time and that takes the air out of the fund raising criteria for evaluating a candidate. And it should raising money is the job of an investor, not a representative of the people-- a legislator whose job it is to look out for the best interests of constituents.
Take the fund raising out of politics and you make it so much cleaner, so much more free from influence buying and peddling. This is not optional. It is something we must do to rescue politics from the dangerous downward cycle of corruption it has been spiralling into.
Take the money factor out of politics and what criteria do you have left? Ability to capture the trust of the voter? Ability to sell the candidate's self on the basis of character, integrity, likeability, vision, wisdom, resourcefulness. These are good things. Ability to build a grassroots team, ability to bring people together in support of the campaign. These are the signs of leadership that make a good candidate.
87% of Democrats support the idea that all eligible candidates should get a fixed amount of money to spend on their campaigns to prevent influence buying. 41% of Republicans and 70% of independents also support this. A majority of every religious category supports this, except born agains, and even among this most conservative base, it is supported by 47% to 42% that support unlimited money from all sources. Even NASCAR fans, military families, investors and people in every income bracket are more suppportive of it than opposed to it.
The support for free ad time for qualified candidates to local and national media is even stronger among Republicans and just as strong among Democrats and even 62% of born-agains and libertarians support the idea. And why not. The media get their free license from the people. Why shouldn't that license come with a requirement that the people get to use the airtime to help enable honest elections?
Considering the voting public's low opinion of the media, with less 2% considering it excellent and only 13% considering it good or excellent, it is no wonder that the public feels the media should give up ad time for the price of democracy.
What would happen if strict campaign laws required that candidates only spent a set amount of money, that they would get free access to TV and radio ad time? There would also have to be laws regulating third party ads-- like swift boat ad sponsors run. But most important, people would not judge a candidate by the money he got from PACs, business, wealthy people and who knows where else. Candidates would be judged for more substantive reasons. The people of the US deserve this.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
The framed magazine cover, with the word "IDEAS" spelled out in lightbulbs, is based on an article Rob wrote for Writers Digest, telling the magazine's quarter million readers how to come up with and pitch article ideas.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
Rob co-hosts a terrestrial and internet talk radio show broadcasting to the Philadelphia and south NJ area on AM 1360, Thursday- 8-9 PM Online here here:
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
I have been saying for a long time that the only way to fix our broken political system is to hold the candidates to a fixed amount of campaign spending. This money should come from the taxpayers. The networks and print media should donate equal time to the candidates. Then and only then, will we see candidates who are seeking political office to serve their communities, their country, and the best interests of the people who elect them. Otherwise, the corruption in government will only continue and the amounts spent by political candidates will only rise to more obscene levels.
I would also like to see casting a ballot on election day regarded as a civic duty, as is serving on a jury if called to do so. If a person chooses not to vote, then they should be subject to a fine of 25.00.
I know it may sound silly of me, but I like the idea of encouraging citizens to participate in our civic process rather than disenfranchising them.
I can hear the howls of protest from both parties now, even before I press the 'Add My Comments' button.
by
DisgustedAmerican (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, February 24, 2006 at 4:37:19 PM
The cost of running for public office is skyrocketing. In 1996, $1.6 billion was spent on the Congressional and Presidential elections. Eight years later, that total had more than doubled, to $3.9 billion.
Thanks to our system of privately financed campaigns, millions of regular Americans are being priced out of any meaningful participation in democracy. Less than one half of one percent of all Americans made a political contribution of $200 or more to a federal candidate in 2004. When the average cost of running and winning a seat in the House of Representatives has topped one million dollars, we can no longer refer to that August chamber as “The People’s House.” If you were thinking of running for Congress, do you have any idea where you would get the money to be a viable candidate?
At the same time that the cost of getting elected is exploding beyond the reach of ordinary people, the business of gaining access to and influence with our elected Representatives has become a growth industry. Six years ago, in his first campaign for President, George W. Bush promised he would “restore honor and integrity” to the government. Repeatedly, during his first campaign for President, he would raise his right hand and, as if taking an oath, tell voters that he would change how things were done in the nation’s capitol. “It’s time to clean up the toxic environment in Washington, DC,” he would say. His administration would ask ”not only what is legal but what is right, not what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves.”
Hardly.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2386 comments)
on Friday, February 24, 2006 at 6:39:17 PM
Rather than regulating the way the stage is set for presentation, perhaps we should be educating the audience about the content.
Let’s face it, the trash that is poured across the airwaves and into cyberspace during an election would be absolutely useless if the electorate wasn’t so gullible to begin with. When organizations like the Swift Boat Veterans can succeed in swaying voters, it’s indicative of a far deeper problem.
We could indeed create an even playing field for all candidates but so long as the voting public is more apt to believe those who create the most outrageous show regardless of the truth, the problem will persist.
Voter education should be the first priority.
by
Redoubt (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 4 comments)
on Saturday, February 25, 2006 at 9:58:32 AM
