Complete public financing of presidential elections
The total cost of the upcoming 2016 election is expected to amount to many billions of dollars. Spending on the 2012 elections amounted to about $6 billion - 2.5 for presidential; 3.5 congressional. The Koch brothers alone are proposing to spend almost $900 million in 2016. From coast to coast, Americans of all political inclinations are troubled, or outraged, or disgusted.
The situation is certainly scandalous, even obscene. But is it actually hopeless?
The situation is certainly scandalous, even obscene. But is it actually hopeless?
Some perspective:
$6 billion is roughly 1/600th of the annual federal budget, which means it's 1/2400th of the federal budget over the four years of a presidential election cycle.
$6 billion is roughly 1/600th of the annual federal budget, which means it's 1/2400th of the federal budget over the four years of a presidential election cycle.
More perspective:
Average monthly cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq over thirteen years has been roughly $10 billion, according to a recent report of the Congressional Research Service - a non-partisan department that has been functioning under a GOP majority for over four years now. That's $10 billion per month.
Average monthly cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq over thirteen years has been roughly $10 billion, according to a recent report of the Congressional Research Service - a non-partisan department that has been functioning under a GOP majority for over four years now. That's $10 billion per month.
We're not willing or able to spend one twenty-four hundredth of the federal budget, or a little more than half the average MONTHLY cost of the Afghan and Iraq wars, to ensure open, free, and fair elections here at home?
We're not willing to pay about $20 per citizen to neutralize the forces of oligarchy?
It has been said that democracy doesn't come cheap, but full public financing of our elections would be a bargain.