There has been a lot of talk over the past many years about too much money being spent on political campaigns. I’m not sure I agree. I do worry about the money that is spent in politics in general, but that is a different issue.
The money for campaigns pays for the candidates to get their messages out. Numerous studies show that “we, the people” need to be exposed to messages multiple times in order to get it ”“ usually at least seven to have a significant impact. In print, there are options for having a larger ad that can take the place of many smaller ones. Either way, more messages or larger messages do cost more money, and it seems like a good thing if citizens get more information.
It allows us to make more informed decisions, assuming the messages are actually informing. If they are not, if they are intended to confuse or deceive in general, then money is not the problem, the candidate is. Where I think money is a problem is how candidates raise money, that is, whether certain donors are permitted to give large sums. It is one thing if a candidate raises $3 million for the Maine state gubernatorial race from 100,000 people. That’s $30 per person.
However, when individuals, large corporations or unions are allowed to donate very large sums of money, it seems naive to think that they are doing so without expecting something in return, should the candidate get elected. There are a myriad of ways officials can pay it back. Just a couple of examples are loosening regulation that protects citizens from corporations that might otherwise intentionally make faulty products to save costs ”“ or dumping toxic waste into our environment, which ends up poisoning us.
If the newly elected official does not pay back the favor during his or her term, not only won’t that candidate get the support in the next election, they can expect the organization or individual to support their opponent. It’s fine to say the candidate should just stand for their beliefs, but the fact is that the large sums of money are spent to influence voters. That’s why they spend it. And if a candidate doesn’t have access to that money, they simply don’t win. That’s just the way it goes.
Further, interest groups are allowed to spend unlimited funds to sway the voters’ minds, even if they don’t donate to a particular candidate. PETA and the NRA are two such groups that come to mind, with their own national agendas. I think this is a direct assault and threat to our republic, and it certainly is not good for Maine.
So here is my proposal for remedying this threat. No one can give more than $1,000 to a candidate. If you think this is too low, what do you think the number should be to keep from influencing a politician once in office? Perhaps we can agree that $10,000 is the number, if we can agree on the principle. I’m fine with candidates spending as much as they raise, so long as we all have roughly the same influence with the official. I’m confident that $1,000 will not unduly influence our politics. We are not all equal, but we should all have an equal or fairly equal voice in our government. If we don’t, we really are on our way to an Oligarchy.
In terms of outside groups like the ones mentioned, I don’t know what we should do, other than keep in mind what they are doing and try not to let them influence us too much. Try not to take at face value every word they say. A little skepticism is a good thing. I welcome your thoughts on the matter.
Thanks for reading, and have a good week.
— Bruce M. Hardina is the publisher of the Journal Tribune, a singer-songwriter, a philosopher, a student of life and the human experience, a columnist, an entrepreneur and a family man. To comment on his musings, email bhardina@journaltribune.com or mail a note to Journal Tribune, Attn: Bruce Hardina, 457 Alfred St., Biddeford, ME 04005.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
