It's Only Money, After All!

After yet another state primary has come and gone I, once again, found myself thinking about how much money Presidential candidates spend during the entire election process. Of course, Senators Clinton and Obama will have spent much more than their republican counterparts because McCain has had the endorsement sewn up for months. But between the two democratic candidates no one knows for sure how much money will have been spent because the race is so close that the two candidates are spending furiously in each of the remaining primaries. Already they have spent well over two hundred million dollars between them and we are still in April.

I have always considered this practice of raising and spending this exorbitant amount of money to be the worst kind of abuse of power. While I realize that it takes a great deal of money to campaign for this most prestigious office, I think that most of the wasteful part of the spending is used on negative campaigning. It costs so much money to film, produce and air television commercials to begin with, and each time one candidate smears another with a negative ad offended candidate must then create his or her own smear ad and air it, and the cycle continues throughout the election process. And, while I enjoy a good political brawl just as much as the next guy, I think things have gotten a little north of "too far". Every year we hear so much about candidates not getting involved in negative campaigning, and every year it only gets worse.

So here is what I would like to see happen for the remainder of this political campaign. Obviously, it would mostly involve the tow democratic candidates, as they are the only ones left in a battle for their party's nomination, but Senator McCain could also be involved to a lesser extend, as i am quite certain he has no intention of hiding away until the general election while the other two battle it out.

Candidates would be allowed to make only two commercials each for the remainder of the campaign. Each commercial would be two minutes in length; one commercial to promote the candidate and his/her platform, and the other to bring attention to the negative aspects of the opponents, i.e. voting record, etc. How imaginative would they have to be if they had to state their cases in two minutes, and not be allowed to "tweak" the ads for the different states as they do now. Better make it count!
The ads would only be allowed to run in the states holding the upcoming primaries, and only for three weeks prior to the primary date. No advance airing in states with future primary dates.

The candidates would be required to participate in one more debate, and one only. It could be aired as many times as necessary in states with primaries remaining, but it could not be altered in any way. Here is how the debate would be conducted. The first half would be traditional question and answer by a moderator (not a media prop with "softball" questions, but by a neutral party respected in the political and media establishment). However, candidates could only answer questions based on how they would do things as President; they could not denounce their opponents plan in comparison to their own, as that honor would be left to the voters. I know, novel idea, right? The second half of the debate would require candidates to answer real, non-biased questions about critical issues which need immediate care, yet get no attention by candidates because they require real, original ideas and tough answers. For example:

"With the escalating fuel prices affecting the costs of so many other products we use every day and leaving families with less expendable income, what plans will you, as President, put in place to ensure our Food Banks remain stocked, as so much of their stocks are donated?"

"Since gas prices are speculated on, essentially gambling on future costs which allows oil companies to set unrealistically high prices, to what extent will your administration get involved with regulating the way gas prices are set? Furthermore, will you impose a complete overhaul of this practice?"

"Will your administration change the laws that govern how much companies can contribute to charities, allowing larger donations to be made in prosperous years without unfairly taxing the companies in leaner years?"

I know this is just a pipe dream but it was fun to imagine it. I just cant stand by a watch all the millions and millions of dollars being frivolously spent while children go hungry, or die because their parents can't afford proper treatments and medications for them, all while some corporations keep getting fatter off the hard work of the general populous while giving next-to-nothing back when they make incredible profits.

By: Matt-Speak

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

matt-speak.blogspot.com/