RE: An Uneasy Mixture

[Michael Laprarie <mlaprarie@greatventure.com>]

G Gocek wrote,

"For example, if we think that politicians are spending too much time raising money and thereby courting special interests, the most fruitful controls would seem to relate to the total amounts spent by campaigns, not the specific sources of dollars."

I agree, and feel that this is the only area of control that would work within the framework of the First Amendment.  But I would favor a cap only on the money that could be spent on unsolicited public advertising, such as TV and radio ads, print ads, placards, etc.  And I would want a flat rate, nationwide, on the spending.  It might cause California and New York candidates to have to watch their money a little more carefully, but don't New York and California citizens (who pay very high prices and outrageous taxes as it is) have to do the same?  And NO GRATIS ADVERTISING (which is the obvious loophole to this idea).  Perhaps media could be persuaded by candidates offer the lowest published rates on their rate cards for political advertising in large metropolitan areas, which would help out candidates who campaign in big cities where the cost of living is high.

But private appearances, whistle-stop campaigning, and directed mail and email to party regulars should not be limited.  If the only unlimited form of campaigning involved personal appearances and personal appeals, then I think that this would make the candidates start interacting with the people again.  In my opinion, that is a major problem with candidates today -- they rely too much on image consultants and spin doctors and too little on the citizens that they want to represent.