The Three Stooges and National Campaign Reform
If I could change one thing about my country, it would be the national campaign and campaign financing process! The three ring circus that now exists is anything but fun. The posturing, lies, mud-slinging and character defamation (and recently the presidential candidates themselves) are more reminiscent of the Three Stooges than of the dignified performances that it seems should be called for on the part of those who are going to run our country and determine our futures.
I would like to see a system where presidential candidates are allowed to campaign for four months only. This would be done during a series of twice weekly debates and interviews run by a non-partial panel of interviewers who ask questions on key issues.
Each candidate would also be afforded so much space in newspapers per week but the articles would also be written by nonpartial journalists. Biographies of candidates would be written, again, by third parties who have no stake in election results.
The biggest change might be to totally outlaw campaign financing and instead to set up a common fund for candidates and to provide equal time for all of the leading candidates that would be provided by the networks and individual newspapers and national magazines. An additional advantage to this banning of campaign financing is that it might curb influence-peddling and graft and corruption in voting. Perhaps we could get out of the power clutch of big business and again make our government one by the people, of the people and for the people rather than one serving the interests of mainly the powerful and wealthy.
This may sound idealistic, but wouldn’t it be wonderful to be able to base your votes on real information rather than theatrics, mud-slinging and character defamation? Perhaps if candidates were limited in the time they were given they would use that time to confront the real issues.
I don’t know how mailings and internet contact of private citizens could be regulated without impinging on the rights of free speech, as it would be a dangerous precedent to limit mention of candidates on various social platforms, but perhaps someone else could figure out some way to stop the current slander and libel and cruel character assassinations that occur on the internet. If not, at least we could encourage our government leaders not to serve as the patterns for such behavior.
In response to The Daily Post’s writing prompt: “The Fun Platform.” If you were the new leader of your country and had the chance to transform something that’s currently an annoyance (or worse) into a very fun activity, what would it be? How would you go about the change, and why would you choose that particular thing?
lifelessons - a blog by Judy Dykstra-Brown 
Excellent points. Mostly only the wealthy run for that office… but worst of all, this 2-party thing isn’t working anymore. Your plan would assure a voice to libertarians or any third party. Ron Paul, after a primary, wasn’t allowed to go on and debate with the others because “there was no chance he could win.”
LikeLike
Brilliant idea! Just a shame it’s unlikely to ever happen.
LikeLike
The 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. the FEC “fixed” the campaign finance problem by making it an enormous problem. Only corporations have voices now. There is no longer a cycle between election and policy-making; it’s elections all the time. And because the “Fairness Doctrine” (which mandated that broadcasters had to present 1. issues of public importance, and 2. all sides) was erased soon after CU was decided, our news broadcasts are largely corporate-sponsored, long-form ads. (As corporations tend not to support those on the left, my side, the broadcasts explain things to their benefit. I almost wrote “airwaves,” but we no longer broadcast TV over airwaves in America. TVs with antennas are useless now. One must pay for TV, cable, to have it. And radio is next. People have been paying for radio for 15 years now–satellite radio. I sat in someone’s car last week: they had WABC, a NYC AM station which is local with an antenna here, on their Sirius/XM receiver. So they were happily paying for something that is free here. And this person is a Republican.)
Anyone running for office would be daft to go it without a big sponsor; several of the many candidates for President in one party this year are funding their campaigns without small donations from everyday people, but they have single, deep-pocketed patrons instead. It is a new Hapsburg/Sforza/Medici era, but without the openness of saying, “Yes. I represent the interests of so-and-so, because he wants me to.”
Ugh. I represent the Ugh Party.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely sickening and from what I hear it is a worldwide problem. In a way always has been but for a few hundred years there seemed to be a chance for democracy in the U.S.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Leonard Cohen in 1990: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU-RuR-qO4Y
LikeLike
Unfortunately the system isn’t any better in Canada. I agree with everything you have said!
LikeLiked by 1 person
If…. If only….. Don’t think this is going to happen any time soon. Well said.
LikeLike
I can sense that politics is an eye sore everywhere, we are not the exceptions. Sick and tired of corrupt politicians and their ideologies.
LikeLike
I absolutely agree on every point you made. I have been yelling many of the same for years now! Consider yourself followed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will seriously consider voting for anyone who can refrain from diatribes, foul language and accusation—and whose followers do the same. So sick of incivility.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. Do any of these people ever consider that they are supposedly role models? These same people probably profess shock over the horrible Facebook slander that young people publish against each other. Where in the world do they learn it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: DEMOCRACY | lifelessons – a blog by Judy Dykstra-Brown