Campaign Finance Reform....Really Necessary?!

In Madison’s Federalist No. 10, he clearly expressed his fear that factions would have a negative impact on American politics. And while the factions he were referring to were parties, factions along the lines of PAC’s, 527’s, and even individuals indeed do have an undue influence on politics. It has been this way since the days of using the caucus where it was basically what the political elites said goes. While this was ultimately ruled unrepresentative and undemocratic, the American political system still faces the same challenges today. By switching to a direct primary, the people now have more of a voice. However, costs have skyrocketed and have opened the door hostile situations such as buying influence, rewarding political elites, frontloading, and of course, campaign finance issues.

Today’s political campaigns are starting earlier than ever. It is highly likely that some candidates have already begun their “invisible campaign” for the 2012 Presidential Election garnering support and money. These invisible campaigns are necessary because with frontloading becoming more and more common, the actual primary season is starting earlier and earlier every year. According to our text, 3% of the American population (Iowa & New Hampshire) get 30% of the campaign coverage. Because this is so disproportionate, it is likely that if a candidate doesn’t appeal to these two states, he/she won’t be around much longer. If one fails to do well in either state, they lose out on money, media coverage and endorsements (people only want to endorse winners) among other things. Because of this problem, the media is essential creating winners and losers. To think that simply because a candidate doesn’t do well w/ 3% of the population can mean the end of their political run is ridiculous. But that is the case, because the media will then turn it into a horse-race television drama type event.

While this nomination area still needs reform I feel (something along the lines of breaking the country in regions, switching primary dates every four years, etc.), the campaign finance area isn’t in as much need of reform. Yes, the spending amounts are rising to preposterous levels each year and it is very unlikely that a candidate with lesser finances could even produce a good showing in a campaign, we are in a free-market capitalistic America where people are able to spend/give money as they please. A candidate that throws his/her hat into the ring for say a Congressional district with only good ideas and little money shouldn’t be one to complain about having less finances. They should start by running for say a local aldermanic district and then work their way up. Along the way if they are doing their job well they will be able to raise money, get endorsements, and compete for a higher level of office with time.

When it comes down to it, campaign spending isn’t as important as it is made out to be. The only reason candidates spend so much is because they are not sure where their money will produce the best return, so they simply throw money at everything. In all honesty, I feel the main reason a campaign is won or lost is due to valence issues. In the last presidential campaign, Senator McCain could have spent all the money he wanted, but he still wasn’t going to get away from the idea people associate him w/ President Bush and him with the economic downfall. The reliable polls (Gallup, Rasmussen, etc.) showed him leading all the way up until the beginning of October when the market tanked and people associate the market tanking w/ the GOP. At that point, all now President Obama had to do was simply distance himself from it and he was golden.

The idea of campaign finance reform is all good and well, but there will always be people finding loopholes and there really is no way to eliminate those with lots of money from influencing campaigns or buying influence. In addition, is it something we really want?! If we set maxium ammounts or have government funded campaigns, who's to stop my mom's second removed cousins uncles brother from running for president. I for one dont want some average joe-blow running the land of the free; if people have money they want to invest in a campaign they should go for it - and why stop at a threshold set by the government....go big or dont go at all!! FECA sought to limit the cost of campaigns, curtail the influence of organized interests, and involve ordinary citizens more in the process; all of which have failed. The only thing that can be done is to limit it; something that McCain-Feingold has been somewhat successful w/.