We all know that money is corrupting our political process. When politicians are allowed to spend huge amounts of money they get to buy the biggest microphone. This business of money equals free speech is nonsense and we all know it. When politicians are allowed to vastly outspend everyone else in the race it means they get far more “free” speech than everyone else.
Almost all the Democrats support overturning the corrupting influence of Citizens United. CU overturned the efforts by many communities to put spending limits on campaigns so one campaign doesn’t game the system by buying up all the media and pushing their message while all other messages are silenced. Even though I favor public financing of campaigns, that’s a long way off, so I’ll settle for lawful spending limits to stop the corrupting influence money is having on our campaigns and the risk this spending has on our democracy.
Here are the latest spending numbers in Wisconsin:
The Sanders campaign leads the pack, spending $206,080, buying up 63 percent of the ad time reserved so far. Sanders is targeting Milwaukee markets, spending $31,350 for TV time at WDJT-TV, $31,295 at WITI and $15,515 at WISN. He has not yet reserved time with WTMJ.
Cruz has spent $83,910 on TV time in the Green Bay, Eau Claire, La Crosse and Madison markets. He spent the most, $30,265, at WEAU in Eau Claire. The Wisconsin Alliance for Reform, a conservative issue advocacy group, also spent $13,200 of TV time for Cruz at WEAU.
Kasich's campaign bought $27,100 worth of television time, spending $5,225 in Green Bay, $12,990 in Milwaukee and $8,885 in Eau Claire.
Clinton's campaign is said to be preparing for a pre-primary ad blitz. She has so far spent $9,285 on time at KBJR, a station in Superior, Wis. She has also requested rates for time at Milwaukee stations.
Update: Some are arguing that it’s not how much money you raise, even if it’s vastly more than everyone else. It’s how much you raise from how many people. I guess there’s some special formula that if you heed, you get to buy elections by buying all the media. If Donald Trump raises $10,000 from 10,000 people is that OK? There are numerous studies that show the more money you spend, the better chance you can buy the election. This isn’t about raising money, it’s about buying elections. A democracy needs campaigns about ideas, not about how much money you can raise from how many people.
Update:II The corrupting influence of contributors on an elected official is a different issue than the corrupting influence of huge unequal spending on campaigns. I think it would be good faith action by the Sanders campaign to agree to spending limits on all future primaries/caucuses.