by Jack Lee
Here’s a thought, imagine running for political office is like a big poker game (at least in the pre-primary). The same party candidates all qualify to run against each other by putting up an ante’ to play. What is the ante? The ante’ could either a given number of signatures of XXX amount of money or a portion of each. This part must be significant inorder to demonstrate their electability. A 1000 signatiures or $5000 for example or a scaled back portion for 3rd party candidates. .
The money is then placed into a pot and it is then divided up equally among the players. As they bet (raise MORE CAMPAIGN MONEY) that money is then divided by the number of (same party) players in the race. The money is divided up equally until after the primary. Then it’s winner take all and the opposing party candidates slug it out as usual.
Example, lets say you raise a 100k during the primary season and there is just one other opponent from your party running against you. That means under the new rules you get to spend $50k and your opponent gets to spend $50k. Therefore, there is no advantage to raising money to try and buy an election and this false argument that you (the candidates) need a huge amount of money to get your message out is put to the test and exposed for what it really is, buying your way into office.
Suddenly instead of candidates raising $500,000 to buy an Assembly seat through mass advertising and name recognition the costs are scaled back to a more realistic amount and what it really takes to get the message out and that is a fraction of what is spent now. This is a good thing too! Let me explain:
This very simple system restrains the skyrocketing campaign spending that makes it all but impossible for the person of average means to even consider running. It makes the candidate’s themselves work to EARN their election and not their money buying their way in.
It reduces the influence the campaign money has on legislators in office who too often try to “repay” their massive campaign debts owed to those very select few who got them there, with special interest legislation that winds up costing you and me (Joe Blow Taxpayer) one heck of a lot more than if the candidates had run their election honestly on the up and up, without the corruption that goes with the big money and it’s dominant and overriding influence on outcome!
We the people. . . will save money by getting improved legislation because we’re limiting the special interest appeal for candidates seeking their support/money/endorsements. That will slow the temptation for corruption as we return more influence back to ourselves and take it away from the special interests now holding the big bucks to buy candidates who in turn use it to buy elections (a vicious cycle that is killing democracy).
Under this system, there is also no pre-primary limit on how much money a person can raise or give to election because the playing field is self leveling (pre-primary) and that was the reason for restrictions on contribution amounts in the current laws. Incumbents must play by the same rules too, no incumbent advantage due to money anymore. After their election they must start from zero in the next election cycle just like everyone else! The excess or left over campaign money from candidates is either returned to the donors or given to their party.
There may be some glitches here, but remember this is just something I am tossing out as food for thought…thoughts are made to be improved and refined into a working invention.