There is no question that campaigning for political office in this country is a daunting venture. We just passed the one-year mark before the 2016 presidential election, but that won’t stop the plethora of potential candidates from hitting the campaign trail with full force. However, with this zeal for campaigning comes a whopping price tag that not everyone can afford.
In September, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker dropped out of the presidential race because of low polling numbers and a lack of funds after a brief two-month run. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Walker’s campaign pulled in $7.5 million from donors while he was in the presidential race, but spent as much as $90,000 a day, funding high salaries for a large campaign staff. Although he is comfortably back in his office at the Capitol, he still faces a $1 million price tag for the debt that his campaign racked up, and he is asking his supporters to help him foot the bill.
If Walker were able to spend the money that he got from donors, he should not double-dip into the pockets of his supporters to repay the debts of his frivolous spending. Walker frequently talks about his roots in small-town America and how his politics will fight to improve the lives of middle-class citizens in and around his state. Instead, he views his supporters as a generous ATM, available to erase the debt that he incurred during his brief stint on the national political stage.
However disgusting, Walker is not the only politician who spends amazing amounts of money to fund their campaign. The inhibitive price tag associated with any political campaign, let alone a presidential campaign, is enough to rule out most candidates who are not extremely wealthy. According to The New York Times, both the Romney and Obama campaigns during the 2012 campaign season cracked nearly $1 billion of spending. This requirement for massive spending alienates candidates from the people they are running to represent; how can someone who doesn’t blink at spending nearly $1 billion relate to the average American, who rakes in just upwards of $50,000 a year?
Other countries don’t have to deal with years of media and political frenzy when it comes to elections; they also don’t have to deal with the massive amounts of money Americans associate with campaign spending. In Britain, for example, the political campaigning process is vastly different from the one we have grown used to here in the United States. For United Kingdom elections, each political party has to adhere to a spending cap of £20,000, (roughly $30,000), cannot advertise on the radio or television, and the campaign lasts about one month.
The election system here in the U.S. is simply out of control. We are one year away from the presidential election, and we are already submerged in political coverage around the clock on all media platforms. Instead of spending insane amounts of money to become a household name, candidates and current legislators should instead take a hint and embrace some more realistic campaigning strategies from other countries, making our elections more relatable to the people.
Samantha is a freshman planning on majoring in communication arts and journalism. How do you feel about campaign funding in the current election? Do you agree with her opinions? Please send all comments, questions and concerns to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
