There are 100 senators. 34 or so come up for election every two years. Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. The most expensive campaigns spend about $20M; the tenth most expensive campaign spends about $5M. The margin between D and R in the Senate is 8. Form a SuperPAC and fund it with about $75M.
Ensure the election of a crop of senators who know what the key issues are for their big contributors... and that if they step out of line, they won't be getting those contributions next year.
If you think about it: lot of issues we can probably solve by writing a check of $20M to anyone who becomes senator and signs oath for not entertaining any lobbyists representing commercial interests. That would be a drop in a bucket in US Gov budget but would prevent lot of these guys from being lobbied by private interests or even cold calling them to funds their campaigns.
> Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most.
Source? Tell that to Meg Whitman.
The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?
> The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?
This is true in somewhat the same way that the solution to teenage pregnancy is just to get all the teens to practice abstinence. Where that view falls down is that not all problems are equally tractable. Attacking a tractable problem generally gets better results even if attacking an intractable one seems more noble.
I grant there are problems that are relatively more tractable or intractable, but I challenge the notion that limiting how much money can be spent on political campaigns is the solution to a problem of an uniformed electorate. Why does limiting every candidate to some level n of spending necessarily lead us to better governance?
Further, in your analogy, I'd argue that the equivalent to teaching abstinence is the idea that we can somehow legislate political contributions and then large political contributions will disappear from the surface of the earth.
I imagine it's a whole lot easier to pass campaign finance regulation than it is to transform a population of hundreds of millions of people into an intelligent, knowledgeable, rational group.
You mean restrict who can vote? The public wouldn't go for it. Which is good, because if people were okay with having their right to vote taken away, we'd be in a much bigger mess.
Correlation is not causation; most Congressional races have either an incumbent or a structural advantage in registration for one party (often both, favoring the same party) and whichever party has one or both of those advantages will usually also gain more donations.
There's plenty of cases were elections where for one reason or another the money tips the opposite direction of those advantages -- and the money loses, while the structural advantages win.
Money is nice, but there's plenty of reason to think that it is more likely to be the product of structural electoral advantage than the source of it.
It doesn't necessarily imply that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. I think it's more likely that most of the time these elections are a close call and campaigning sways people who are in the middle or motivates people who might not otherwise vote.
The argument basically just implies that advertising has some influence. Which is true - even for an educated and informed audience. Nothing you do to the electorate can make them immune to advertising. So money will always be a motivation for politicians. Especially since extra campaign money can always be spent on all kinds of fun expenses, and giving well paying jobs to friends and family.
Also, bear in mind that even the most well informed educated electorate has a very limited feedback mechanism. Many people care so strongly about particular issues that they will never change their vote. Which means people in the middle ground only really get to choose between the two main political parties. In practise, it works out a bit like a price fixing cartel. Basically both parties take turns screwing everyone over. Candidates only have to make the appearance of being better than the last guy during election time. During their last term they can do whatever they want, which sets the bar really low for the next guy. It's a race to the bottom.
As long as the influence of money is present, politicians will behave as corruptly as they can get away with. Improving the education level of the electorate reduces the amount politicians can get away with, but because of the two party system, they'll always be able to get away with a lot.
A big problem is candidates with little cash might have problems getting their existence out there. More than limiting spending, providing more airtime for registered candidates might go a long way.
There are 100 senators. 34 or so come up for election every two years. Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. The most expensive campaigns spend about $20M; the tenth most expensive campaign spends about $5M. The margin between D and R in the Senate is 8. Form a SuperPAC and fund it with about $75M.
Ensure the election of a crop of senators who know what the key issues are for their big contributors... and that if they step out of line, they won't be getting those contributions next year.