Letters to the Editor
-
While you're controlling the inflow, why not limit the outflow?
Part of the problem is the escalating cost of running a campaign in this country. Even the most wide-eyed, public-interest-minded newbie politician (is there such a thing?) must schill for an obscene mount of money to mount a campaign. And the day after they arrive in their state capitol or DC, they have to start drumming up cash all over again. Is there any wonder they respond to the siren call of lobbyists?
Here in the Northeast, we see the fruits of this arms-race style of campaign funding: millionaire politicians buying their way to electoral victory (Bloomberg and Corzine).
How about a modest proposal to put a cap on the total amount that can be spent on a campaign? Let's decide that a gubernatorial election in, say, New Jersey, should cost $8 million dollars. Put in an inflation-adjustment clause, and that's it. That's what it'll cost, forever. Once a candidate reaches that level of fundraising, he or she will have to stop. This may even have the added benefit of limiting the blitz of advertising that precedes election day and encourage more judicious spending (well, I can hope).
I realize this doesn't deal with the advertising by supposed "grass-roots" issues groups that also pop up during election time. But if we don't try to limit what they can spend, we have little hope of limiting what they take in. As long as the other guy can raise the ante, the costs will keep going up, and the business of electoral tit for tat will continue.