The latest estimate of how much it will cost to run for president in 2008: $500 million.

Half a billion dollars.

My first thought, perhaps predictably, is about how this is another nail in the coffin of what's probably always been a pipe dream, that anyone can grow up to become president. How our increasingly un-democratic country falls far short of its potential is an ongoing concern for me. I guess this isn't too surprising in light of how monstrously campaign spending has grown in the Bush II era, but if there was any last vestige of egalitarianism in U.S. politics, this is crushing it.

Upon further reflection, a more serious thought follows: that the most important issue here isn't how this unbelievable cost shuts most people out of the running for higher office, but how dangerously high the resulting level of indebtedness will be. Very few people on earth could come up with anywhere near this amount of money on their own, and so an incredible amount of indebtedness to others will result from anyone trying to obtain it. The more money that's required, the bigger the players it will have to come from. That means more corporate interests having more direct control over the democratic process, which means more time and effort spent repaying their calculated generosity and less spent on the wellness of the people.

This isn't a new thing in politics, but it seems to me like an alarming new level is being reached. With the stakes this high, how can the voice of anything that's not massively profitable have a chance to reach the ears of those in power?

My thought on how to solve this is pretty simple: remove all private money from the election process, and from the governing process. The first part means that elections would only be publicly funded. Far more is spent on elections than is necessary. Private money creates inequality before the process even starts, which is inherently unfair. Public funding would create the possibility of ideas winning out over cash.

That also means shutting down private donations to campaigns. This doesn't bother me because I don't believe that money equals speech, as many already-rich people would argue. Free speech is just that--speech, expression of beliefs through speaking or writing or otherwise communicating as a person. Everyone has an equal amount of that, fundamentally. Saying that money is speech suddenly makes super-citizens out of everyone who has more of it. So you're a multi-millionaire who wants someone specific elected to office? Then go hand out flyers and participate in rallies like everyone else, Richie Rich.

It also means banning all private money from the governing process. Gut the current lobbying system, no gifts of any kind to politicians, and at least a 5-year moratorium after politicians leave office before they can work for private interests they benefited while in office. Corruption seems to be an inherent part of the human experience, and rules won't eliminate it; but why not have rules that will get us closer than we are now? For Pete's sake, I have stricter rules for conduct in my job than do the leaders of our country. What congresspeople do every day, compromising themselves for financial gain and political favor, would get me fired immediately.

I used to be sympathetic to term limits, but have lately been feeling that isn't the best idea. There is something to be said for experience in politics. I've come to feel that the influence of money is the central problem in our government.

Now if only I had half a billion dollars to prove it.

Labels: Politics