Needed: More time legislating and less time fundraising.

            The amount of money spent on campaigns has gotten to be astronomical. In 2012 over 6 billion dollars were spent. Without financial support a political campaign is doomed, and money does not always come easy. The U.S. would benefit greatly if we enforce stricter campaign finance laws in order to limit the amount of money being spent during a political campaign.

           Candidates waste so much time and money campaigning to win that they lose site of their obligation to the public. I genuinely think that people wanting to run our country start with good intentions and a mission that drives them, but navigating through campaign bureaucracy often changes the game. The last time an elected President aligned with neither the Democrat nor Republican party was in 1850. This is because rich special interest groups are vital in supporting their party’s candidates, making it almost impossible for the underdog to get past Primaries. In order to make their greater good happen candidates are essentially forced to accept donations that may come with repercussions. Often individuals and corporations that donate do so with the expectation of political favors. This scenario is multiplied by 100’s to gain enough money to run a campaign but then the newly elected officials end up with a huge laundry list of everyone else’s to-dos. This sort of corruption is the basis for a lot of voter dissatisfaction with our political system.  

            I propose that we come up with a system that allows politicians to spend more time legislating and less time fundraising. Campaign finance reform would even out the playing field by making sure rich candidates stay within respectable spending limits and give economically challenged candidates a fighting chance. Frivolous campaign spending only causes a further divide between the candidates and the public. Typically the largest portion of campaign money is spent on paid advertisements, which are loaded with slander or are incredibly cheesy. Expensive pamphlets and yard signs just end up in the landfill. Another large portion of the money is spent on campaign staff. They spend a majority of their time trying to raise more money. This process is superficial and out of control. It needs to be scaled back.
          Canada, Britain, Mexico and many other nations enforce campaign-spending limits. Britain’s short campaign period allows less time for money to be spent. Some European countries provide free radio and TV broadcasting for candidates. Mexico practices a mixed finance system, giving public funds to candidates while allowing for limited amount of private contribution. If the U.S. put into place strict campaign finance regulations it would help create a more representative government. Politicians could spend more time focusing on issues and less time trying to make friends with money. And they wouldn’t have to worry about keeping and making those financial relationships a top priority. I think that if the U.S. adopted campaign finance reform we’d have a more representative and functional government and voter satisfaction would be raised.

What's in store for Hillary

            The article "The First Female President" written by Tina Dupuy on the Blog The Smirking Chimp brings light to some of the approaches the media will take if Hillary Clinton is elected as the first female President. This week Hillary Clinton devoted part of her speech at the U.N. to the progress women have made in the world in the past 20 years. But most people did not get to hear it or even realize she made a speech at the U.N. The media has been in too much of a frenzy with the Clinton email scandal, which can be debated somewhere else. The point Dupuy is making in this article is in line with something Clinton also mentions in her speech, that as women we have come far but “we’re not there yet.”

            
Similar to the challenges Obama has had to deal with, Dupuy thinks that Hillary “will have to deal with weird and blindingly stupid things no white male president has ever had to deal with.” She is preparing us for what may come with the territory for our first female President, warning that “And we, as Americans, who always admire and romanticize pioneers, will have plenty to cringe over.” She then goes on to list a huge amount of inappropriate derogatory terms that she thinks could possibly be used by the media directed toward Clinton.

           Dupuy has aimed this article toward Democratic sympathizers, woman, feminists, or anyone who is tired of the media trashing people and harping on unimportant details. As a journalist and also a stand-up comedian she uses a sarcastic tone to shine light on some of the inappropriate language that the media might use toward Clinton. It’s shocking and sad but we have all read some media publication using some of the exact terms she brings up. By shining light on this sort of negative approach it will be more obvious when the media does start attacking her for these petty things and maybe the public will learn to turn a blind eye to this unprogressive media, making it go away faster.