In the past several years I have become more involved in politics, on the local and national levels. I have even given thought to running for local office. One of the things that stopped me was the lack of cash to fund the campaign.
I read that in this election that just ended (finally), more money was spent than in any prior election excluding presidential elections.
Jerry Brown* became the governor of California [again!] by spending an estimated $24.8 million for a job that pays $212,000 annually. Harry Reid* spent an estimated $22 million to represent Nevadans so he can earn $193,400 as Senate Majority Leader ("regular" members of the senate make $174,00 annually).
*I only mentioned these two candidates because they were involved in high profile campaigns and they were the winners of their respective races. If pressed I could have mentioned that Meg Whitman (who ran against Jerry Brown) spent an estimated $140 million or Barbara Boxer spent approximately $15 million on ADVERTISING to make $1,044,000 over the next six years.
That brought the question to my mind: why would someone spend so much money to be elected to a job that pays so little (as compared to what is spent on the campaigns), but that is for another discussion.
So it also put me to thinking about campaign finance reform. I don't have all the details worked out yet, but here is what I have so far: Candidates can only spend the equivalent of what they will make during their term in office. For example, if a senator is going to earn $174,000 a year for a term of six years, they can only spend $1,044,000 on their campaign.
As to what others can spend on behalf of a candidate, I think there needs to be limits, but I haven't figured out how to monitor that... Yet! Any suggestions?
That's my humble yet correct opinion!
No comments:
Post a Comment