I received a Twitter tweet from @tDailyInsanity (The
Daily Insanity), a popular account with over 13,000 followers and a Facebook page with
300 "LIKES", so I promised to answer the anonymous author's question. The
question was:
"@CombatCongress Shouldn't need majority to expect fairness in ballot access, election rules, campaign funding. What will YOU do if elected? -- The Daily Insanity"
I replied with the following tweet:
"@tDailyInsanity Thank you for the great question! I will give it some thought and post my response on my blog: http://www.CombatCongressman.blogspot.com"
After giving the question some thought as
promised, my response is, WHEN elected, I will follow the rules and traditions
set forth by generations of congressman before me in addition to our founding
fathers. A majority is required in a federal constitutional republic such
as ours to pass legislation (bills) into law.
A simple majority will do much of the time, but a 3/5 majority is
required in some situations (Corrections Calendar) and a 2/3 majority in others,
including overriding a presidential veto (a very difficult thing to do) as well
as voting on constitutional amendments.
As far as fairness in ballot access and election
rules are concerned, you do not provide enough information to provide an
appropriate comment to a rather historically sensitive process. I believe
the rules governing ballot access and election rules are clear and fair, but
there may be still be difficulties in implementation if that was your intention.
Although women and minorities have much better access to the voting booth than
in years past, I am sure there are still places where some have not fully
embraced those rights. If I discovered unfair or illegal restrictions in
the ability of certain people to vote in my district, the problem(s) would get
my full attention and I would ensure swift and appropriate actions taken by authorities
overseeing the process in question. The right to vote is one I take
extremely seriously and I would not tolerate the hindering of ANY UNITED STATES
CITIZEN'S constitutional right to vote.
Finally in terms of campaign funding, a
completely separate issue in my eyes, I feel very strongly that we as a nation
waste far too much money on political campaigns, money that could be spent on
much better things than television attack ads, chartered aircraft, and
countless other wasteful campaign tools. According to Public Radio
International 1, presidential and congressional
candidates spent between six and seven billion on campaigning in 2012 ...
BETWEEN $6,000,000,000 and $7,000,000,000 ... that is a whole bunch of zeroes
my friends! Moreover, that does not include the local races for governor,
state assemblies, mayors, and so on. We could be looking at
$10,000,000,000 in all if we considered every campaign in a given election year.
I find it appalling that we waste $10 billion on
getting people elected and the process occurs every two years, although a
fraction of the spending occurs in midterm elections, taking into account that
Obama and Romney accounted for 20% or nearly $2 billion of the $10 billion
spent in the 2012 election. Comparatively speaking, according to Dave Gilson (writing for Mother Jones
magazine 2), Abraham Lincoln spent over 260 times less in the 1860 election ($2.8
million in today's dollars) than was spent last November. That still
seems like a lot of money to me even if 2012 numbers dwarf that amount.
To answer your question, I believe we
desperately need campaign-spending reform. I do not know about you, but I
start "tuning out" the political rhetoric, attacks, and other garbage
spewing from my television only days after the campaign ads start. What
good are they really doing and is it worth $10 billion? I say not.
My reforms would impose strict limits, as is the case in many European
countries, setting caps on campaign spending commensurate with the level of the
race. An example follows:
·
Presidential Elections:
$250,000
Limit per Candidate
·
Congressional Elections: $100,000
·
Gubernatorial Elections: $ 50,000
·
State House / Senate:
$ 25,000
·
Mayorial / Judge /
Other: $ 10,000
Modern advertising has changed drastically in
recent years with the advent of social media and just think how much could be
done on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and blogs, including much more focused
advertising as is the case with Facebook, YouTube, and Google AdSense or
AdWords. Print advertising has become outdated and television is slowly
becoming obsolete because of DVRs and TVO, with citizens
recording their favorite shows and fast forwarding through commercials,
particularly campaign ads. What a huge waste of money!
If television stations want to focus on the
issues in a particular race, they could give, voluntarily and on their own
dime, a specific amount of airtime to candidates, but all candidates should get
equal amounts of time in equivalent time slots to maintain fairness. We could
achieve several things if we could implement all or some of my suggestions
above:
1. The billions we spend every two years
could go toward reducing the deficit or paying for the things that would
preclude reductions in personnel and benefits, usually the first two things on
the chopping block when things get tight.
2. We might actually be able to focus on
important issues, knowing that candidates will want more "bang for the
buck" and eliminating or at least reducing the negative "attack"
advertising that has become commonplace in today's elections.
3. If campaign funding caps such as those
above were enacted AND strict limits on individual and corporate donations
were enforced (say $2,500 maximum in a presidential election) AND candidates
were given a modest campaign stipend by the government, then the SUPER PACs,
lobbyists, and other large donors would have FAR LESS control and influence on
candidates. Candidates would then be
able to focus on more critical issues, such as those that are important to
their constituents rather than those of the “big spenders”.
This is a radical yet simple approach and a change I believe would be
hard to sell, particularly to those large donating machines that control many
elected officials today. In my own campaign, I plan on limiting spending
to "as little as possible", effectively utilizing social networking
at a fraction of the cost of TV, radio, and print advertising. I will also get out into my district and meet
the people, what I call "leadership by walking around", shaking
hands, listening to what my constituents have to say, giving them my card, and
shaking their hand ... asking for their vote by looking them in the eye and
telling them "you can count on me ... Integrity First, Honor Always!"
I hope this answers your question. Feel
free to comment or contact me for clarification or additional information.
Thank you for taking the time to reach out and for taking interest in my
opinion.
Regards,
Thomas C. Sorrentino, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
a.k.a. CombatCongressman
1. Source: http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/government/estimated-cost-of-2012-campaign-6-billion3276.html
2. Source: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/historic-price-cost-presidential-elections
