Established 1826 — Oldest College Newspaper West of the Alleghenies
NEWS

Election fundraising

Point - Regulations must increase

By November the presidential candidates will have raised over $1 billion. The prospective candidates are well on their way to meet this mark and so far they have raised over $700 million. This election's campaign spending is on pace to more than double the total spending of the 2004 election. For a 30-second TV advertisement during American Idol, a candidate should expect to pay around $700,000. The average American household income is approximately $48,000. One of these primetime advertisements is worth more than the entire income of 14 American households. If the presidential candidates really wanted "free" and "good" press, wouldn't a large donation to one of their many causes be a great way to show their devotion rather than buying expensive advertisements? Many people consider their campaign donations to be a good investment in America's future. Many corporations and big interests who make these investments expect big returns, but eventually one candidate will become the next president and every other candidate won't. Are these campaign contributions still going to be considered good investments if your candidate loses?

Currently, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is raising around $1 million per day. At that rate, between now and the end of spring break, Obama could raise enough money to buy out the contract of the Cavalier's newly acquired Ben Wallace. This money comes from individuals, Political Action Committees and-less frequently-from public funding. The 2008 campaign has seen a massive surge of individuals contributing to campaigns. The maximum that an individual is allowed to contribute is $2,300. Individuals donating the maximum compose around one half of Senator Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) raised capital, while Obama claims to have over 650,000 different donors, with the vast majority donating less than $200.

Some exaggerate the effect of these individual contributions in an attempt to downplay the effect of corporate donations. However, corporations still influence and donate to campaigns through a clever variety of direct and indirect avenues. The donation of soft money- funds toward anything that can be attributed to "party building"-was completely unregulated until 2002. The passing of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002 was supposed to mitigate soft money's impact on the elections. Unfortunately political parties have skirted around these restrictions through the creation of Political Action Committees that can spend soft money donations. Rather than cutting presidential campaigns big checks, these corporations encourage employees to donate to campaigns. Through Political Action Committees it has been estimated that The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. has donated more than $1.5 million to campaigns thus far. Still think it's a coincidence that President George W. Bush's treasury secretary used to be the CEO of Goldman Sachs?

Political Action Committees and other groups often hold fundraisers called "bundlers." These fundraisers rely on collecting from a large number of individual donors. A fair percentage of these donors also donate the maximum amount. Bundlers have become a crucial facet of a successful campaign. Bush nicknamed his most successful bundlers: Those who helped to raise over $100,000 were called "pioneers" and those who helped to raise over $200,000 were called "rangers." Clinton has enacted a similar system calling her most lucrative bundlers the "HillRaisers." Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rudy Giuliani followed suit with their "McCain 200s" and "All-American Sluggers." Did I mention that the most successful bundlers are often given political nominations or other favorable treatment?

Bundlers and Political Action Committees allow big interests to assert their unregulated influence over a campaign and to shape the political landscape. If Americans really want fair change then loopholes like these need to be permanently closed. Maybe the best way is through creative regulation or to restructure the existing electoral system making it cheaper for a candidate to run. One way or another, in order to keep elections free, fair and equal something big needs to happen to America's campaign finance system.

Alex Hollingsworthhollina2@muohio.edu

Counterpoint - Government should not interfere

The increasing amount of money channeled into elections is not the crisis some make it out to be. In 2004, the presidential election was heralded as the most expensive election, now again the 2008 election is breaking records. Critics find the cost to be a gross excess and have sounded the call for campaign finance reform-but this is nothing novel. The issue resurfaces with every election and then sinks into oblivion. The reason for this tidal-like motion needs to be examined before taking up the call for change.

Past reform, particularly the 2002 bipartisan McCain-Feingold Act, seems to have not only failed to stem the climbing costs of elections, but actually have fueled the increase in spending. Searching for fault in the act reveals that the act itself was designed to address loopholes of past legislation. So, why the increase? Actually, the increase is largely attributable to an increase in donations by individuals. In this election, like the last, more people are giving the maximum amount to candidates. This is not the scheming of corporations attempting to buy policies by buying candidates. It is everyday people participating in the political process. Finally, after all the media's harping on it to get involved, the public is exercising its voice. Besides, campaign contributions on the part of big business are not the equivalent of lobbying. The only reason to limit corporate participation would be if there was suspicion of corruption. With so many factors influencing their stance on issues, not least of which are their own views, candidates are not for sale.

Enjoy what you're reading?
Signup for our newsletter

While spending money may not fit perfectly into the Constitution's protection of free speech, it is legally recognized that money is necessary to disseminate speech in a society as large as the United States. Maybe the money funneled into campaigns could be better spent elsewhere, but that choice should not be subjected to government regulation. People are free to decide what they do with their earnings. Backing a candidate who drops out is similar to making a risky stock investment. It is not the role of the government to save people from themselves.

This presidential election may be the first in which both candidates do not accept public financing, which limits the amount each can spend. However, this is a flawed system of reducing election spending anyway. Instead of allowing people who wish to donate money in support of a candidate, taxpayer money is used to fund the campaigns. Voluntary contributions based on agreement with candidate positions are far superior to this system of essentially forcing everyone to pay for elections even if none of the candidates appeal to the voters.

So why is there such a push to address skyrocketing spending? Spending is not the issue, the cost of the election is. Any meaningful reform needs to address the root causes. Perhaps the greatest problem is the media. Journalists' own framing of elections as nothing more than a horse race, depending on numbers because they are easy and available, reduces the substance of elections while increasing the cost. If the media did not reduce campaigns to 30-second commercials and witty one-liners, maybe so much money would not have to be spent on capturing the public's attention.

The reliance on expensive TV ads is depressing not just because their cost is ridiculous, but also because they lack content. Still, if the cost of elections is so concerning, reform must not interfere with the public's ability to support candidates. The Supre me Court has already declared that limiting election expenditures is unconstitutional, only campaign contributions can be limited. This is far too narrow to allow for the change critics wish to see. Address the issues from which the costs arise-not the symptom.

Morgan Riedl riedlmm@muohio.edu


Read More

Trending