FreeWhat!?

**This article previously posted in 2007**

Elections are FUBAR By Regie Thompson

My French brother-in-law and I like to talk about politics. I consider myself left-leaning, Jean Marc is a full on Communist. Red to the core. We both detest Bush and oppose the Iraq war. On a recent visit, he asked me who I felt would make a good president after W is finished with his ruin.

I began by telling him that since I live in Utah, my presidential vote really does not count because the Electoral College delegates from Utah will always vote Republican. However, I continued, I liked Bill Richardson’s ideas, but knew he had no chance to go past Super Tuesday, if that far. Beyond that, I explained that I prefer the Democratic Party to the Republicans, and whomever they sent would probably get my vote. He asked why Richardson would not stay in the race. When I told him it was money, he understood but knew it to be as wrong as I do. The process to choose our American President needs to be tweaked from beginning to end.

In the 18^th & 19^th centuries, most communication was written or spoken, until the invention of the telegraph. Before the telegraph, the speed of communication depended on the transportation method. Horses and trains were most reliable. If one lived far in the wilderness, news rarely came. As electric items emerged, communication became more rapid and widespread. Now, it is possible to watch what is happening on the other side of the planet, as it happens. This immediacy of communication makes it easier to get your voice heard. As the election nears, this immediacy can have a major impact on voter opinion.

It is obviously necessary to promote your product in order to get people to buy it. A huge corporation enjoys a powerful promotional advantage over a small business. To communicate to the most people, television seems to be the medium of choice, and networks will happily sell anyone a block of time to get their message out. A national 30-second block of time during the late, late night programs might run a couple of thousand dollars. The same amount of time during the first quarter of a Super Bowl broadcast costs millions, because millions of viewers are watching. Thirty seconds of regular prime time programming time will set you back five, maybe six figures. This system of buying and selling media time has made many men very wealthy and impacts us each time we catch that Must See TV show, the latest big game, or whatever neo-reality garbage we are being spoon fed by the networks. The ones with the money fill in the two minute gaps in television programs with their message. Buy our car. Eat our food. Take our pill. Watch our show. Drink our beer. Use our gadget. Vote for me. That other guy is bad. We’ll be right back after these messages. Keep watching. And we sit there and fucking do it.

One of our oldest methods of communication, the printed word, can also be effective. Space in newspapers, magazines, flyers, billboards, etc., can reach a more specific audience. Radio and internet can also be useful media tools. But like television, the price depends on the number of people who might be reached by the message. It costs a lot of money to get a message to all of the people.

As we approach our next presidential election, candidates will be spending millions of dollars to have their message heard. Each party will produce messages touting their candidate as the best choice for America and we will watch them during our television viewing. Candidates will say that they “approved” the message and we will nod our heads in agreement or shake our heads in resistance of their message. Some candidates or like-minded citizens with money will attack the virtues of the opposition. They will certainly have a need to defend their voting record, their leadership credentials, perhaps their religion or background. These 30-second tidbits may play a huge role in our decision for whom to vote.

Cha-ching.

So, where does this money come from? Corporations, religions, individuals each donate millions of dollars to candidates. Candidates spend this money for travel to the states with the next caucus or primary election, where they make an hour-long appearance that supporters organized and sold at $500 per plate. The appearance is followed by television ads and billboards, reminding us of the glorious time THE CANDIDATE graced our fair town.

So when I explained it to Jean Marc, he sat back amazed that Americans would allow it to happen. He quickly deduced that the candidate with the most money can use it to buy more access to voters than the others in the race. He believes that each candidate should have equal access to campaign funds and spend them how they wish. They could spend it on a steady media campaign or a Super Bowl commercial. The money would be provided by the state. That’s the Communist in him. And he’s right.

There is an Equal Time rule that broadcasters must follow when allowing political advertisements to be aired. But this rule includes only ads that are “approved” by the candidates, not ones that are produced by others is support of the candidate. But, all candidates do not have the same amount of money, therefore giving wealthy candidates more opportunity to buy advertising, or campaign travel.

But, what would the benefit be if each candidate had the same amount of money to spend on the primary campaign? The obvious benefit would be restricting the obscene amount of money spent on political campaigns by candidates such as Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton. By allowing voters to see who handled the budget best and putting the money where it could work most efficiently, candidates’ financial skills would be under a microscope. This would give voters a view on the economic policy of the candidate. Once that money had been used up, there would be no more. Instead, we hear reports of Barack Obama raising more money in January 2008 than his opponent. Mitt Romney has more money than his opponent. Money for what, exactly? Does the amount of money a person has or is capable of raising during a given time give any indication to voters how the candidate will spend it? No. If they are given a budget, voters would get a better look at the fiscal thinking of the future office holders, at all levels of government.

After the primary election, the remaining candidate for each party would be given equal access to more funds to continue the campaign. But at no time during the process, would any candidate be able to take any contribution of any kind from any individual, group, corporation, organization, etc. If another entity paid for advertising on behalf of any candidate, the amount of money spent on the promotion would be deducted from that candidate’s taxpayer generated campaign funds.

Equalizing the campaign war chests of candidates would level the playing field during elections. Instead of being bombarded by ads from two major candidates, voters would be able to see advertising from every candidate. However, if one candidate decides to spend more money on a slick production, perhaps their ads would run less frequent or at times when fewer are watching. If the candidate spent less on production, they would have more to spend on ad time and space, and could concentrate on getting their message out.

Another benefit would be that the candidates would need to focus on the message and be effective in delivering it. They would need to be good public speakers, knowledgeable, attractive in idea before appearance, organized, and well staffed with volunteers. This could potentially draw more people into the process at the grass roots level, which is where it should be most important. We are not nearly enough involved in choosing our leaders, mostly due to voter apathy and the communication power of money.

Solving the campaign funding discrepancy will not take care of all the problems in the American election process. The Electoral College is obsolete and should be abolished.

When our founding fathers organized the election process, they took care to equalize the vote, keeping the people living in cities and near the news sources from dominating the process. The Electoral College was born. Each state sent delegates to represent the vote of the people. As the country dramatically grew over the first 100 years, the process remained adequate. But, times have changed, as have the population centers, the issues facing more demographic groups, and the ways we communicate. If one looks at the “red and blue states” from the 2000 election, it is amazing. Almost the entire country is red, with the West Coast and Northeast dominating the blue. Before the debacle in Florida, Bush held 29 of 51 states (District of Columbia is included in the 51) with only 246 electoral college delegates. Gore only took 20 states but had 260 delegates, mostly from population centers such as the northeast US and California. Florida and Oregon were decided after election night. Gore eventually lost the election because Bush’s team pressed Florida’s leaders to declare him the winner there, and the matter went to the Supreme Court, which appointed Bush as president. However, Gore received more overall votes than Bush. In a true democracy, this would have never happened. Each vote would have counted. Instead, one state decided the election, based on delegates rather than the actual votes cast nationwide.

The system is not fully broken, but it does need repair. As a minority party voter in my state, my vote is effectively erased by the electoral college. My vote for a nationwide leader should count the same as someone in another state. My vote for president does not count equal to my Colorado neighbor because Utah always votes Republican for president and the delegates vote in step with the majority. In a national election, for the one leader who represents each of us on the world stage, every vote should be equal in value, across state lines, joining our collective voices. If there is a delegate system, then instead of a “winner take all” election, there should be a percentage of the delegates given to each candidate. This would more accurately represent the will of the voters, and votes in one-party dominated states like Utah would increase in value.

With the political divide between parties growing wider each election, the debate is getting nastier and money is having a greater influence than ever before. Candidates are raking in record amounts of funds from sources with an agenda. With those huge sums of money being used by candidates, these sources can influence a politician’s decision on issues critical to the source of the funds. This is not the America I believe our founding fathers envisioned, and there must be change. However, politicians will continue to accept the funds without limit on the amount they can spend to campaign. An ordinary citizen has little chance of influencing a politician without a check in hand, and that check needs have many zeroes at the end of it. Money buys influence and power, and few politicians will ever vote to limit that pipeline of cash. It’s job security.

So, what do we do? Our first act might be to begin a dialogue with your representative. Let them know how you feel, and that you are politically active. Ask them about the issues. Find out how they are inclined to vote, and why. Do it on a local, state, and federal level. These people work for you. Of course, this might be close to impossible to do with a presidential candidate, but the representative you have a dialogue with might feel the same about presidential campaign finance.

Next, we would need to watch the media and how they react to it. News outlets might further commentary in favor of one candidate, hoping to sway viewers. By doing so, they are exercising their right to free speech. They are also labeling themselves as right or left or red or blue or whatever label comes next. But, they would continue to be required to provide equal time for each candidate and bill the candidates’ campaigns for additional ads they did not approve or produce.

Jean Marc looked at me long and hard when we finished the conversation. He understands, as Communists in France are certainly also a minority party and money poses the same problem. This is not an easy issue to solve, and a solution will not come without serious debate, in which we need to be engaged. We must demand a better system to choose our leaders, more equality for them to be heard and seen, and a more transparent budget-based campaign funding process. At the very least, we might realize that we have given up the reins of control not to our representatives, but to the ones who give them money. We might want that power back. One thing we stand to gain is the realization that together we are one, yet also individual, equal in voice.