The 22 Billion Dollar Question

What could the nation do with $22 billion?  Fund research to cure cancer?  Build hospitals in under served rural areas?  Issue grants to study Alzheimer disease?  Bankroll shelters to house battered women? Support efforts to end cruelty to animals?

There are many good uses for that large sum of money. Unfortunately, the $22 billion already has been spent and not a single worthy cause benefited.   

Instead those billions ended up in the pockets of politicians. From 1998 through 2010, groups, individuals and corporations funneled more than $22 billion into federal campaigns to help elect candidates for president, senate and the house.

Those eye-opening dollar signs were calculated by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group which publishes the numbers on its website, OpenSecrets.org.  The figures do not include the millions spent in local and state elections every year.

The media would have you believe that most of that money lined the pockets of fat-cat Republicans.  However, in recent elections, Democrats hold a decided edge over their GOP brethren, outspending Republicans in three of the last four election cycles. 

This election year will likely be no different.  According to the latest data, President Obama has outspent his challenger Mitt Romney by more than $70 million.  Obama has tallied $204 million in spending versus $131 million for the former governor.

Some political pundits are forecasting spending in this presidential election will eclipse $2 billion.  Obama is doing his part to reach that plateau.  The president already has hosted 197 fundraisers since launching his re-election campaign in 2011, triple the number (86) George W. Bush held for the entire 2004 campaign, according to a report in USA Today.   

The mind-numbing dollars showered on political candidates raise legitimate questions about the impact on elections.  The cash tsunami has corrupted the political system, stymied good candidates from running and made influence peddling a Beltway parlor game.

Here are three common sense suggestions on how to take most of the money out of politics:

FREE MEDIA:  Every candidate for federal office gets a limited amount of free air time on television along with gratis radio and newspaper ads.  The media donates the advertising space and writes it off its corporate taxes.  If necessary, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could force television and radio stations to cooperate as a license requirement.  Outside of news coverage, candidates cannot buy another smidgen of advertising. 

TIME LIMITS:  Candidates for federal offices cannot begin campaigning until three months before the election.  No exceptions. Today's campaigns are prolonged marathons which add millions to the cost.  In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, there are time restrictions on campaigns.

THREE DEBATES:  The four major networks host three debates for president, senator and representative.  No more, no less.  The debates would give every voter a chance to near the candidates. Questions would be submitted in advance to help candidates prepare and to eliminate the media's penchant for reserving its harshest questions for Republicans.

With these modest changes, spending on campaigns would plummet. The biggest losers would be the television networks, who depend on federal campaigns to generate billions of dollars in advertising revenue to fill up their corporate coffers.

This campaign season television stations are expected to grab 75 percent of political advertising budgets.  Research firm Washington Analysis projects $4 billion could be spent on advertising this year on behalf of federal, state and local campaigns across all media platforms, including the internet.

For that reason, big media will lobby furiously against any change in the status quo.

Without change, the cost of American elections will rocket into the stratosphere.  From 1998 to 2010, election spending for federal candidates, including president, soared by 125 percent.  When will the political arms race end?

Never.

Not unless Americans elect candidates dedicated to reforming the current political system.  Now, finding a candidate willing to forfeit the political pot of gold may be nearly impossible.

But there are at least 22 billion good reasons to make this a priority for the nation.