Can't Buy Me Love; But Maybe An Election

In this real life video game of PAC-Man, or should I say Super PAC-Man, where money goes to benefit candidates, but the candidates can't really be involved in how it's used even though it helps them and/or hurts the other guy. Makes sense, right? Didn't think so.

Every election cycle revives the same arguement about money and politics. I guess I really shouldn't say argement because almost everyone thinks that money is to politics what anabolic steroids are to baseball.

We've seen how special interests are able to influence government to do things that benefit the special interests at the expense of the rest of the country. We've seen regulations that stifle growth in some industries but let others run amok (see banking). We have a tax code that is so complicated that it makes quantum physics look like Dick and Jane.

No doubt, money has had a negative influence on politics, but what is the alternative?

The reality is that it costs alot of money to run for public office. Getting votes is no different than getting people to buy soap. You have to get in front of people to get your message out and there is no way to do that without money. It doesn't matter if you're running for president of the United States, a seat on the local library board or selling bars of Ivory, you need money to get your message out.

Let's face it, more people are concerned about who is winning on American Idol than who's running our country. If you want to reach people, you have to advertise on Idol and that's not cheap.

The usual solutions that we hear are government funding of campaigns and giving candidates free air time. The problem with that is where do you draw the line? There are over 50,000 elected positions in Illinois alone. Does the government give money to every candidate that wants to run for any of those offices? Do we expect the media to give free air time to all of them? Or do we just give it to the Democratic and Republican nominees for president? Why just the two main parties?

If you only do this for presidential candidates, how much influence will donors will already have by the time that candidate runs for president. Unlike Herman Cain, most candidates have already had to raise money to get elected to other offices first. And what about congress?

As bad as that may be, think about the alternative. If candidates are unable to raise campaign donations, only the very wealthy would be able to run for office. Can you imagine if Donald Trump actually became president?

Personally, I think that candidates should be able to raise whatever money they can, provided that there is immediate disclosure. If a candidate gets a large sum of money from the NRA and you support gun control, that person might not be the one you want to vote for.

I think that it's important for voters to have a choice in every election and that can only happen if candidates have the ability to fund a viable campaign. Let's face it, most of us aren't going to be able to research the details of every single person running for every single office, so the only way we can really expect to learn about the people who want to lead us is for them to be able to get their messages out to us. And that costs money.