Tue, Oct 31, 2006 page7

• Money talking now more than ever in US politics

  • AP
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The US nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics predicts that, by the end of the year, candidates, parties and outside groups will have raised US$2.6 billion for the Nov. 7 elections, 18 percent more than in 2002.

  Federal Election Commission (FEC) figures show that as of Sept. 30 congressional candidates alone had raised US$1.18 billion, up almost 15 percent from US$1.03 billion in 2004.

  Republicans and Democrats, which raise almost all those funds, see good in the high-cost US system: Money enables candidates to communicate with voters and parties to organize efforts to get out the vote. They worry when they see unfair advantage for the other side.

  Even many academics and nonpartisan watchdog groups say the large sums spent on US elections are not a problem in themselves. They say the system largely addresses the real concerns -- protecting free speech and preventing or punishing corruption -- though it does less well at opening competition for office to a wide range of people.

  Campaign money may not be a bigger problem in the US than in countries that spend less, said Fred Wertheimer, founder of the non-partisan organization Democracy 21.

  "The potential for money to have undue influence over government decisions exists in almost every political election system," he said. "The problems with our system don't have to do with the amount of money spent; they have to do with the sources."

  Congress voted in 2002 for changes in campaign finance regulations that outlaw direct contributions from corporations and labor unions to candidates or political parties. Now, corporations and unions can set up political action committees that contribute to campaigns, but the donations can come only from individuals.

  Wertheimer said the changes have worked well. He also said public financing of presidential races, in place since 1976, needs some revision, but the model should be extended to congressional races.

  Others are less enthused about the 2002 campaign finance law. Nelson Polsby, a political science professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said the changes have been "quite ineffective" because they seek to control something that may be impossible to police.

  Regulations that curtail political free speech, through donations and campaign spending, could create a system in which only the famous or wealthy have a good shot at winning office, he said.

  Polsby recommends focusing on the other end -- the prospects for challengers.

  "Who has more money is not the most important thing. More important is whether the candidate who has less has enough" to compete, Polsby said.

  Critics of the current system cite the fact that about 98 percent of incumbents who run for re-election win. Polsby says there is still substantial turnover, between 10 and 20 percent, because officials move up, retire or die.

  Americans should be looking to create ways for more people to compete for office, says Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, a nonpartisan group that develops ideas on electoral reform. Too often, the big money in US elections is used to scare off competitors even within a party, he said.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    F-16 Block 70 jets to arrive this month, official says

  • 2

    Taiwan-Tokyo travel pass launched

  • 3

    Chinese man captured on a rubber boat

  • 4

    Starlux Airlines to apply to join Oneworld alliance

  • 5

    Manila pulls ship from Sabina Shoal