Government funding of political campaigns

Politicians and their political parties cannot legally dip directly into the federal treasury to extract money to fund their campaigns and pay the hefty salaries of their campaign staff members, consultants, strategists, speech writers, poll takers, plus travel expenses, phones, mail, office supplies, signs, bumper stickers, campaign buttons, and whatever else strikes their fancy. There is an alternative legal means the politicians employ. They must first find a way of getting treasury money out of government and into the hands of special interests that will share a small portion of the government booty with the politicians. Those politicians already in office can even vote for the government to borrow that money needed to go into circulation before a portion makes it to their election war chests.

Labor union members, where many members have no voice on how campaign money is spent are an exception, but for the rest of us the politicians know they cannot force you, me, or other individuals to contribute money to their political machines. They can however use their elective office to take our tax dollars, put the money into the hands of special interests by way of spending bills, and later enjoy a small portion of the proceeds by way of campaign contributions. Once politicians have special interests identified, corralled, and on the take, the graft continues unabated.

There’s a mathematical formula to it. it is actually easy, it’s called dollars per vote, for an illustration, lets say that a campaign spends $1M and is targeting 10K votes. That works out to a budget of $100/vote. Now if you have a special interest who wants to give you $10K knowing that you might be a little more “sympathetic” to their special interest cause when “beneficial” votes come up, you suddenly have the potential to reach 100 more votes. Now who do you think is going to get more attention, the individual vote, or the donor who can help you reach 100 votes?

With that said though, I am totally against state funded political campaigns. These people are running to be leaders in our government. In order to raise the money and assemble the operation needed to run and win an election, the person must utilize their leadership and managerial skills. The effective ones will rise to the top, the bad ones will fail to impress the voters. It’s actually a system that has proven it self well over centuries.

Thanks for you reply. It is much appreciated.

I noticed I didn’t say it in my original post, but I am also against state funded political campaigns, very much so. It is why I find the method I wrote of so upsetting. The politicians employing these tactics are in the majority and comprised of both parties. They use their position in government to lay & collect tax, budget the spending to special interest groups, and then realize their portion of the booty.

To me, that is state funded political funding, but of a most despicable form due to the secrecy involved.

I long for the days of my youth when campaigning was different. Although it sometimes feels like centuries, most of the change happened in the past fifty years.

Politicians were so dependent upon volunteers walking precincts to win elections, not campaign money. Not every household had a phone and few had televisions. The larger the volunteer organization of a politician, the better the chances for election. MSM and now the Internet has replaced the precinct walker.

Many well financed campaigns lost elections to well organized volunteer political campaigns. Well financed candidates could plaster their image everywhere, but if they couldn't field an organization of grassroots volunteers, they usually wouldn't get elected.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.