Money plays too large
of a role in the modern political system. Legislative candidates who were able
to raise more money than their opponents were successful 76 percent of the time
during the 2009-2010 state primary elections. Similarly, in the 2004 general
elections, 95 percent of House races, and 91 percent of Senate races were won
by the candidate who raised the most money. Incumbency also plays a large role
in elections, but most often the incumbents are able to raise more money than
their competitors. In 35 states, 80 percent of the time the winners were also
the monetary leaders. Suffice it to say that money is critically important in
our current political system.
This naturally leads to the conclusion that
certain individuals have an extreme comparative advantage when it comes to
entering the political realm. But, this
isn’t the way politics was originally intended to be. The people in office
representing the citizens are supposed to be those individuals who will do the
greatest good for their constituency, not necessarily those with the most
money. It’s hard to imagine the amount of intellectual potential that goes
untapped due to such exacting barriers to entry, but I’m sure it is quite
substantial.
Now, the federal
government realized that money was making elections (and subsequently politics
in general) unfair. So, since 1867 there have been over 20 different attempts
at reforming campaign finance. However, none of these reforms have ever been very
effective, allowing those pesky politicians the ability to find all sorts of
loopholes. Part of this is due to the current structure of the Federal
Elections Commission (FEC). Right now, the FEC is made up of three Democrats and
three Republicans. This often leads to partisan deadlocks on reform proposals.
Understandably, if no reforms are being passed, and current reforms are not
being policed then money creeps back into the picture.
I believe however, that
new reforms should be passed. These reforms would make the political system a
whole lot simpler, and allow all sorts of individuals an opportunity at
politics. Part of this process would be removing the current FEC, and creating
a new, independent FEC free from partisan issues. This way people with great
ideas for the country wouldn’t be discouraged from entering the system solely
on the basis of money. It might simply be that people with more money are
better loved by voters, but I doubt it.
Doesn't it only make sense that the people who raise the most money win the election? It could mean that the most people support that candidate. The more people who donate, the more money is donated.
ReplyDeleteIt could mean that, but it probably means this person was quite wealthy to begin with. At that point they have a huge advantage in advertising, which naturally leads to more money in the form of donations.
ReplyDelete