Does Big Money Always Win Elections?

Of course not, as incumbency typically trumps big money campaigning. Many voters prefer the devil they know! 

Nevertheless, one of the legs of the Democracy Movement is that money is not a form of speech that is protected by the First Amendment’s free speech clause (“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”).

So, for elections, money should not keep any American from being heard and money should not advantage a big money candidate in being able to wage a campaign that a poor man cannot match. So, we need to outlaw “big money in elections.” 

Fine, but what does that mean? First, TV ads cost a fortune. Either a) outlaw them entirely or b) have the wealthy candidates – or the stations that air the ads – pay for equivalent airtime for all candidates who cannot afford the ads. As b) seems unworkable to me, let us put a) into effect: outlaw all televised campaign ads. 

The same for internet ads (on Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and all Social Media sites). No prohibition on mounting your own web site as that only costs lots of money if you have lots of money. If a poor candidate has no tech expertise, and if the candidate has no friends who are tech, let them find another job. But a poor candidate with some tech help can mount as effective a website as Donald Trump; it is NOT about how much it costs, it is about how good a job the web designer does in “selling” his candidate. 

No newspaper ads, no paper magazine ads, as they all cost lots of money. 

No requests for campaign donations as one wealthy contributor can upset the whole apple cart of keeping elections free of big money. No acceptance of unsolicited campaign donations either, for the same reason. 

No paid staff. Have as many volunteers as you can attract who can help you win your election. 

“How then can I get my message out to the people?” 

TV debates, there will be debates. Be prepared. 

Build a web site of your own candidacy. Some tech politicos can design a template of what such a site should contain, if not look like. Nobody need start from scratch as though this has never been done before. 

Knock on doors. Speak to people, one on one. 

Plan speeches and town halls in as many times and places as you and your staff can manage. Kiss babies; speak to people, 100 at a time. 

There ought not to be any limits on what you can do to win an election, as long as that does NOT include techniques or strategies that a poor candidate would not be able to afford. 

“But doesn’t this abridge the free speech of a wealthy man?” No, it only limits his right to broadcast his speech to millions at a time in ways that are not available to his competition. And winning an election is a winner take all proposition, so it is NOT like advertising brands of soda, as the Coke drinker is free to drink Pepsi and Dr. Pepper and Sprite any time he wants. 

A serious objection has been levelled against this idealistic approach to electioneering. “There will be 100 candidates for this Congressional seat and 2000 candidates for president. Maybe fair, but chaotic instead.” 

So, what is wrong with too many candidates? In a real democracy, anyone should have the right to elective office, not just wealthy or famous folks. A decent candidate will have to prove that he means good things for the voters and not just a job for himself. Many candidates will not be known to voters beforehand, and it will be their job to fix that. Those who already have a reputation in their communities will have an advantage (or disadvantage), and that is a good thing, as they will have demonstrated the kind of persons they are prior to running for office. 

Finally, what is more damaging than corrupting the election process is the damage done to the legislative process, as any recipient of big money donations will necessarily feel beholden to his donors and will write legislation to favor them, or even allow their donors or their lobbyists to write legislation in their stead. What! You thought that Obamacare was Barack Obama’s idea, or any Democrat’s idea! While the American public can now breathe a collective sigh of relief for not having to worry about pre-existing conditions or maximum life limits, the real beneficiaries of Obamacare were the health insurance companies and the prescription drug companies, not exactly an intention that any card-carrying Democrat would ever propose! Money corrupts, big money corrupts absolutely! 

Money out of politics, big money out of politics, the sooner the better. 

Objections welcome!