![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is something I've been thinking about for a while now.
To say that our campaign finance system is messed up is a major understatement. Not just campaign finances, actually, but the general issue of money in our politics. Money in politics is always going to be a problem, but the degree to which it has taken root in our country is unbelievable.
Lobbyists give our lawmakers thousands of dollars at a time "hear them out." It's understood that the lawmaker in question isn't guaranteeing a vote - that would be bribery - but that doesn't stop the lobbyists from going so far as to hand over the full written text of the laws they'd like to see.
Our congresspeople take that money, not just from outright greed but because reelection campaigns are prohibitively expensive. In fact, Congress routinely takes long weekends so that people can go attend fundraisers. On top of that, when the Republicans took over the House, one of the first things they did was schedule it so that for every two weeks they work, they get a whole week off... so they could go attend more fundraisers. A few of the newly elected representatives even skipped out on their own swearing-in ceremony so that they could instead go attend a fundraiser. Let me repeat that. They'd just won national office for the first time, and instead of going to do their jobs - instead of going to take their oath of office - they skipped out to start raising money for their reelection campaigns.
Why are campaigns so expensive? Because they're largely run on TV. Ad time is very expensive, and if you don't keep up with your opponent's airtime, you'll lose the messaging war.
Congress attempted to address the problem back in the 90s. They limited the amount that could be contributed directly to any candidate by any individual, and put in place legal protections to keep employers from using their employees to make larger donations. But they also created Political Action Committees, which legally could not endorse any candidate but which could air ads about general issues. So politicians started their own PACs and had money funneled through there. It didn't help much. The field was opened even further with the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited money on political ads. So not only do corporations get a bigger voice, but the politicians they implicitly back are even more beholden to them for their elections. And it makes our electoral system almost inaccessible to anyone not already among the top 2% of the wealthiest people in the country.
The idea of publicly funded campaigns has been attempted, but the public funds available for candidates has been dwarfed by the dollars pouring in from corporations, PACs, and other special interests. Arizona recently attempted to change their system so that public funds would be weighted towards candidates facing opponents with heavy private backing, but it's looking (not surprisingly) like the Supreme Court will rule against it.
But think for a moment what a political ad is. Whoever is making it has 30 seconds to convince you. No time for context or subtlety or complexity. Just time enough to tell you in the most glaring terms possible that their side is right and the other side is wrong. In other words, pure, distilled spin. Sites like FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com are swamped trying to debunk the most outrageous claims.
So campaigns are prohibitively expensive, lawmakers are taking time away from doing their jobs to go raise money for the next campaign, lawmakers are tied more and more to corporate interests over the public good, our airwaves are filled with people shouting hideous exaggerations if not outright lies, and our political discourse is becoming more and more polarized. And at the heart of it all is political advertising on TV.
Here's a radical idea, then. Why not ban political ads on TV? That's what they do in the UK. (Here's a post about it from someone in New Zealand, where they've taken a partial step in the same direction.)
It won't fix everything. Not by a longshot. But it would be a huge step forward. Towards making elections more accessible. Towards reducing the influence of corporations and special interests in our politics. Towards helping our lawmakers focus on what they were elected to do rather than how they're going to afford to keep their jobs. Towards reducing the number of lies and distortions in our public discourse. Towards reducing the anger and polarization sweeping our country's political landscape.
Think about it. What would we lose by doing so? Is there anything good about political ads on TV? Any benefit at all to a method of messaging which consists entirely of cherry-picked, out-of-context sound bytes and informational snippets which are heavily distorted at best? Any reason for us to tolerate their persistent annoyance?
There's free speech. That's a powerful reason. But that's exactly the problem. It's far from free. With the price of a single slot so prohibitively high, the platform is heavily weighted towards those with huge amounts of money to spare - mainly corporations and the very wealthy people at the top of those corporations. Arguably, it makes our speech less free. (That post from NZ makes a more thorough case. I'd suggest giving it a look.)
We're living in the Information Age. The Internet and social media allow levels of communication, knowledge accessibility, and grassroots efforts unlike anything in history. There's no excuse for relying on 30-second commercials to get your messages out - or, as a citizen, as a major source of decision-making information.
One single step. Ban political ads on TV. It won't fix everything, but it can change so much for the better.
To say that our campaign finance system is messed up is a major understatement. Not just campaign finances, actually, but the general issue of money in our politics. Money in politics is always going to be a problem, but the degree to which it has taken root in our country is unbelievable.
Lobbyists give our lawmakers thousands of dollars at a time "hear them out." It's understood that the lawmaker in question isn't guaranteeing a vote - that would be bribery - but that doesn't stop the lobbyists from going so far as to hand over the full written text of the laws they'd like to see.
Our congresspeople take that money, not just from outright greed but because reelection campaigns are prohibitively expensive. In fact, Congress routinely takes long weekends so that people can go attend fundraisers. On top of that, when the Republicans took over the House, one of the first things they did was schedule it so that for every two weeks they work, they get a whole week off... so they could go attend more fundraisers. A few of the newly elected representatives even skipped out on their own swearing-in ceremony so that they could instead go attend a fundraiser. Let me repeat that. They'd just won national office for the first time, and instead of going to do their jobs - instead of going to take their oath of office - they skipped out to start raising money for their reelection campaigns.
Why are campaigns so expensive? Because they're largely run on TV. Ad time is very expensive, and if you don't keep up with your opponent's airtime, you'll lose the messaging war.
Congress attempted to address the problem back in the 90s. They limited the amount that could be contributed directly to any candidate by any individual, and put in place legal protections to keep employers from using their employees to make larger donations. But they also created Political Action Committees, which legally could not endorse any candidate but which could air ads about general issues. So politicians started their own PACs and had money funneled through there. It didn't help much. The field was opened even further with the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited money on political ads. So not only do corporations get a bigger voice, but the politicians they implicitly back are even more beholden to them for their elections. And it makes our electoral system almost inaccessible to anyone not already among the top 2% of the wealthiest people in the country.
The idea of publicly funded campaigns has been attempted, but the public funds available for candidates has been dwarfed by the dollars pouring in from corporations, PACs, and other special interests. Arizona recently attempted to change their system so that public funds would be weighted towards candidates facing opponents with heavy private backing, but it's looking (not surprisingly) like the Supreme Court will rule against it.
But think for a moment what a political ad is. Whoever is making it has 30 seconds to convince you. No time for context or subtlety or complexity. Just time enough to tell you in the most glaring terms possible that their side is right and the other side is wrong. In other words, pure, distilled spin. Sites like FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com are swamped trying to debunk the most outrageous claims.
So campaigns are prohibitively expensive, lawmakers are taking time away from doing their jobs to go raise money for the next campaign, lawmakers are tied more and more to corporate interests over the public good, our airwaves are filled with people shouting hideous exaggerations if not outright lies, and our political discourse is becoming more and more polarized. And at the heart of it all is political advertising on TV.
Here's a radical idea, then. Why not ban political ads on TV? That's what they do in the UK. (Here's a post about it from someone in New Zealand, where they've taken a partial step in the same direction.)
It won't fix everything. Not by a longshot. But it would be a huge step forward. Towards making elections more accessible. Towards reducing the influence of corporations and special interests in our politics. Towards helping our lawmakers focus on what they were elected to do rather than how they're going to afford to keep their jobs. Towards reducing the number of lies and distortions in our public discourse. Towards reducing the anger and polarization sweeping our country's political landscape.
Think about it. What would we lose by doing so? Is there anything good about political ads on TV? Any benefit at all to a method of messaging which consists entirely of cherry-picked, out-of-context sound bytes and informational snippets which are heavily distorted at best? Any reason for us to tolerate their persistent annoyance?
There's free speech. That's a powerful reason. But that's exactly the problem. It's far from free. With the price of a single slot so prohibitively high, the platform is heavily weighted towards those with huge amounts of money to spare - mainly corporations and the very wealthy people at the top of those corporations. Arguably, it makes our speech less free. (That post from NZ makes a more thorough case. I'd suggest giving it a look.)
We're living in the Information Age. The Internet and social media allow levels of communication, knowledge accessibility, and grassroots efforts unlike anything in history. There's no excuse for relying on 30-second commercials to get your messages out - or, as a citizen, as a major source of decision-making information.
One single step. Ban political ads on TV. It won't fix everything, but it can change so much for the better.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject