Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
It seems that almost every other word we hear from the mouths of presidential hopefuls — primarily the Democratic candidates — is “change.” They all tell us they are for change from the failed policies of the Bush Administration, but the unanswered question is, “Change to what?” The change that is needed the most (and is least likely to happen), is a change in the election process.
The first thing that is wrong with the present election process is that it is way too long. The major professional sports seasons go on for five to seven months, and many complain that is too long. But the current presidential race has been going on for well over a year, and the election is more than eight months away. This year, they almost pushed the earliest primary elections and caucuses into the year preceding the election. There is no reason for not limiting the process to seven months — four for the primaries, and three for the general election campaign. What would be a more fitting date to start the race than April 1 — April Fool’s Day?
The second, and even more important change in the election process would be to eliminate the influence of money in determining who gets elected. The need for candidates to raise obscene amounts of money — millions of dollars every two years for the House of Representatives, tens of millions every six years for the Senate — is an invitation to corruption.
There are a number of things wrong with the current state of affairs. First, elected officials, particularly those serving in Congress, have to spend an excessive amount of their time raising funds for their re-election campaigns, diverting their attention from serving the people they were elected to represent.
Second, in order to keep the money from major corporate donors coming their way, they have to return the favor by supporting legislation and regulations that are favorable to those donors, regardless of whether they are in the best interests of the American people. And third, money can deny equal opportunity for candidates to get their positions on important issues before the electorate by buying media dominance, particularly television time.
Of course there are two powerful interests that will vigorously oppose any change in the status quo. They are the incumbents, who have the advantage of being in the position of power to grant favors to raise money, and the communications industry, which is more than happy to take as much of that money as they can get their hands on. It is this money circle that gives rise to the public outcry for term limits.
But if we had a fair and equitable campaign finance system, we wouldn’t need term limits. An upcoming challenger would have a level playing field against an incumbent who was beginning to lose favor with the electorate. He would no longer be perpetuated in office by the power of big money.
It is we, the people, who must demand meaningful change in the election system to mandate equal funding for both incumbents and challengers who can demonstrate that they are viable candidates, with stipulated campaign funding amounts to be provided by the appropriate government, state or federal, eliminating private funding.
The next administration and Congress may present an opportunity for a real change — a change that will return control of national elections to the people in accordance with the intent of the Constitution.
Hal Sundin’s column appears every other Thursday in the Post Independent.
The first thing that is wrong with the present election process is that it is way too long. The major professional sports seasons go on for five to seven months, and many complain that is too long. But the current presidential race has been going on for well over a year, and the election is more than eight months away. This year, they almost pushed the earliest primary elections and caucuses into the year preceding the election. There is no reason for not limiting the process to seven months — four for the primaries, and three for the general election campaign. What would be a more fitting date to start the race than April 1 — April Fool’s Day?
The second, and even more important change in the election process would be to eliminate the influence of money in determining who gets elected. The need for candidates to raise obscene amounts of money — millions of dollars every two years for the House of Representatives, tens of millions every six years for the Senate — is an invitation to corruption.
There are a number of things wrong with the current state of affairs. First, elected officials, particularly those serving in Congress, have to spend an excessive amount of their time raising funds for their re-election campaigns, diverting their attention from serving the people they were elected to represent.
Second, in order to keep the money from major corporate donors coming their way, they have to return the favor by supporting legislation and regulations that are favorable to those donors, regardless of whether they are in the best interests of the American people. And third, money can deny equal opportunity for candidates to get their positions on important issues before the electorate by buying media dominance, particularly television time.
Of course there are two powerful interests that will vigorously oppose any change in the status quo. They are the incumbents, who have the advantage of being in the position of power to grant favors to raise money, and the communications industry, which is more than happy to take as much of that money as they can get their hands on. It is this money circle that gives rise to the public outcry for term limits.
But if we had a fair and equitable campaign finance system, we wouldn’t need term limits. An upcoming challenger would have a level playing field against an incumbent who was beginning to lose favor with the electorate. He would no longer be perpetuated in office by the power of big money.
It is we, the people, who must demand meaningful change in the election system to mandate equal funding for both incumbents and challengers who can demonstrate that they are viable candidates, with stipulated campaign funding amounts to be provided by the appropriate government, state or federal, eliminating private funding.
The next administration and Congress may present an opportunity for a real change — a change that will return control of national elections to the people in accordance with the intent of the Constitution.
Hal Sundin’s column appears every other Thursday in the Post Independent.
