Most people think that money has too much influence on the selection of candidates and the success those candidates have. Money from corporations, PACs, and even political parties have no respect for precincts from which candidates run to represent. Providing money to campaigns is, in a sense, voting for candidates. We have a long tradition of one man, one vote in American politics but allowing money to choose candidates violates that principle.
Today, millions of dollars are flowing from out of state into the Texas senate race for Colin Allred in hopes of defeating Ted Cruz. I use this only as an example, not to support either candidate. Why should out of state money influence Texans’ choices? The candidate is supposed to represent the state, primarily, with only a secondary or tertiary obligation to serve those in other states. Why should other states distort support within any state by funding campaigns? Allowing it is a direct attack on federalism. It is anti-American.
Laws should be passed - perhaps even embedded in the constitution - that would limit campaign fund raising to the districts which elect candidates. Let those running for the House raise money only within their district with no outside funding being legal with severe penalties to both those contributing illegally and for campaigns that accept them, up to and including recall from offices won if violations are proved to have been willful on the part of the candidate or his campaign management. Those running for the Senate would be limited to funds raised within their states. Only the POTUS/VPOTUS ticket should be allowed to seek and accept funds nationwide. I think this would go far toward making the intent of federalism a reality again.
We already have caps on the amount that individuals can contribute to candidates, but those caps affect only direct contributions and do not include contributions to PACs and political parties who then can and do funnel the money to candidates. Funding campaigns is, in a sense, casting a vote. By allowing any entity other than individuals to fund campaigns, we allow and condone violation of the principal of one man, one vote, on which democratic processes are based and without which they do no work as intended.
Corporations and business consortia should not be allowed to fund political campaigns nor should political parties be allowed to raise funds from one area (precinct, municipality, county, or state) and funnel it to campaigns outside those areas. Again, that is a form of voting for those candidates and violates the very principles on which our democratic republic was founded and on which it should be based today. In fact, government exists for the benefit of people, not entities not born of woman. Should any entity not born of woman participate in the political process and governing? If so, then the US constitution needs a lot more protections from government than just those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Do not misconstrue my meaning. Do not put words in my mouth by saying that I am proposing to eliminate political parties. That is not the case at all. Political parties serve good and useful purposes, but financing campaigns is not among them. The primary function of political parties is to stand up candidates with all other functions being secondary. Funds contributed to political parties should be kept out of campaigns and be used to find qualified candidates, putting them forward, and giving them a platform upon which to expound their views; but no funds should go directly to candidates. This would clean up the political process and prevent candidates from enriching themselves personally by running for office.
The reforms suggested would have the effect of reducing how much money is available to any campaign. I think that it would have the effect of reducing the amount of negative campaign advertising because with fewer funds candidates would - in theory - be more likely to focus on their core beliefs and intended actions when elected. Otherwise it becomes easy for voters to recognize paucity in campaigns.