Thomas B. Edsall has this on-line New York Times column, exploring the political science research on the relationship between polarization, and strict campaign finance laws that hobble political parties. Thanks to the Center for Competitive Politics for the link.
If we truly believe in equality, then we need an electoral system which keeps the rich candidates from dominating the election environment over the poor candidates. We know the poor candidates usually lose under the current system.
The only way, is to abolish all private financing and establish Public Financing with stiff prison penalties for those individuals who attempt to skirt such with “under the table” private financing.
A formula should be devised for determining who is a serious candidate and who is not. And deciding who is serious and who is not is another issue. But all serious candidates (including 3rd party and Independents) should receive equal “X” number of dollars from, for the lack of a better name, “The Federal Election Campaign Finance Agency.” Obviously, so many dollars for all presidential candidates, and so many dollars for all congressional candidates.
Such financing does not always have to be monetary. The Federal government should require that all Media (newspaper, television, internet) provide so much free time and free space for promotion of all candidates – depending on the office sought. And of course all Debates – whether privately or publicly sponsored – must include ALL candidates.
This would NOT hamper the 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of the Press as many will scream. The Press is still free and will remain free. It will remain free to lambast to its heart’s content those candidates to which it must give equal time and attention. The only requirement is, it must at certain times of a year during the election cycles, provide free equal time and/or free equal space to all candidates. A formula would have to be devised as to how much time and/or space.
On the state level, the state governments should do likewise for statewide, legislative, and local candidacies. They can provide monetary contributions equally to all candidates, on a formula based on the office being sought, and again, they can use the Federal Law to require Media in the respective state to prove free equal time and free equal space for promoting the candidacies of all candidates depending, of course, on the office sought.
There is no other way for the people to have the opportunity to know about ALL of the candidates and which candidate is best to support. While some candidates will obviously have a better name recognition from already being the incumbent, or being a famous personality, still, for example, if the Democratic nominee for President is given 100 million; if the Republican nominee for President is given 100 million, and if the Libertarian nominee for President is given 100 million, then all candidates will be placed on, at least in theory, “a level playing field,” and the people will be able to make a better determination of which candidate is best for the White House.
Anyone with a better idea, speak up.