A Different Way To Campaign?

[The_Animus]

The campaign spending in the Georgia special election ended up running over $50 million, ~$20 from the Republicans and ~$30 from the Democrats.

It seems to me that in the digital age money would become less important as candidates can reach large numbers of people through various social media platforms for a fraction of the cost of traditional advertising and campaign operations. Money is still important, but it's becoming cheaper to reach more people and also to target more specifically.

It also seems like the excessive amounts being spent on campaigns today is a waste.

What if they instead gave themselves some sort of voluntary cap, say a few million, and after reaching that continued to raise funds but for various projects and things the area actually needs? For example, say the dems spent $5 mil on the race, and that was their cap, but they could still raise $30 mil so they used that other $25 mil to immediately go towards the type of projects the party would like to do more of if in office. If they support quality infrastructure they use it on a highway that needs repair, or a water system that needs replacement pipes. Or they might use it to expand healthcare services to an area that needs them but is currently insufficiently served.

I don't know all the campaign finance rules and how they would go about being able to do this legally, whether within the campaign or outside via a PAC or some other option. Politicians and their lawyers seem to be good at finding loopholes or creating them too.

In any case, these things would in turn likely generate media attention anyway and they can show how they are already doing things to help the state and showing what sorts of things they would do, all during the actual campaign.

Assuming this were legally permissible, would it be effective? There has to be a better, less wasteful way of doing this...

 

[Civet]

A highly liquid pool of money that you could funnel to politically connected contractors, you say? A cunning strategy. And obviously the money would go toward projects that would create jobs in the communities that supported the candidate that raised the money. Only fair, really. Also got to make sure the projects are properly labelled so people know where that money came from. It could work, but I just don't have the connections to profit from something like this.

 

[theprestige]

The best part is, nothing really stops candidates from doing this already.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Raising money for campaigns is not so much for spending than as a system to rank candidates.
When a company spends millions to advertise a product, it is primarily a signal to investors of how much the company believes in the product.
Similarly, having a big war chest shows the trust donors have in you, even if you don't spend a dime.

 

[The_Animus]

A highly liquid pool of money that you could funnel to politically connected contractors, you say? A cunning strategy. And obviously the money would go toward projects that would create jobs in the communities that supported the candidate that raised the money. Only fair, really. Also got to make sure the projects are properly labelled so people know where that money came from. It could work, but I just don't have the connections to profit from something like this.

Standard anti-fraud and anti-corruption rules would apply just like they do currently in campaign finance and other areas.

 

[The_Animus]

The best part is, nothing really stops candidates from doing this already.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

Is that true though? Or are there currently rules that would prevent campaigns from using the money in this way?

Assuming it's true, are you saying the reason it's not done is because it's not effective? Are there examples of it having been done before?

 

[The_Animus]

Raising money for campaigns is not so much for spending than as a system to rank candidates.
When a company spends millions to advertise a product, it is primarily a signal to investors of how much the company believes in the product.
Similarly, having a big war chest shows the trust donors have in you, even if you don't spend a dime.

That might be part of the reason but I'd disagree that it's the main one. They're still raising the money regardless though so I'm not sure it matters for the purposes of the OP

 

[Brainster]

What if they instead gave themselves some sort of voluntary cap, say a few million, and after reaching that continued to raise funds but for various projects and things the area actually needs? For example, say the dems spent $5 mil on the race, and that was their cap, but they could still raise $30 mil so they used that other $25 mil to immediately go towards the type of projects the party would like to do more of if in office. If they support quality infrastructure they use it on a highway that needs repair, or a water system that needs replacement pipes. Or they might use it to expand healthcare services to an area that needs them but is currently insufficiently served.

The question is how long would donors continue donating to the campaign if they knew their money was going somewhere else? Democratic donors were looking to embarrass Trump; they wouldn't have keep sending money if it wasn't going to accomplish that purpose.

 

[The_Animus]

The question is how long would donors continue donating to the campaign if they knew their money was going somewhere else? Democratic donors were looking to embarrass Trump; they wouldn't have keep sending money if it wasn't going to accomplish that purpose.

Different people may have different motives for donating. I would think most people gave money in the hopes it would help their candidate win rather than to embarrass Trump.

And that money is still going to the campaign. Rather than being spent directly on ads, it's spent on various goodwill projects with the hope of also generating free media attention. I don't think the donors would care so long as it was effective enough to end up winning the election.

If not then I think you're right and donations would drop.

 

[Civet]

Standard anti-fraud and anti-corruption rules would apply just like they do currently in campaign finance and other areas.

Not fraud - these funds would be spent on public works projects as you described, but surely the entity controlling these non-governmental monies would decide which projects would receive funding, wouldn't it? No different from a charity deciding to focus on some localities over others. Being a political entity, its decisions would almost certainly have a political dimension.

 

[MuDPhuD]

In order for politicians to do this they would need to be convinced that dollar for dollar, this would get them more votes than the standard advertising model, where misleading and denigrating mass media adds about your opponent deliver the win.

Alternatively, we could simply do away with fundraising entirely and have public funding of campaigns and organized mass media information sessions where candidates answered a battery of questions regarding the issues of importance to the constituents. Not a "debate" mind you, they could just do it individually, and then let the public compare the results, and vote for the candidate who best represents their views on those issues.
Of course, how then will we find out who is involved in marital infidelities, or "in the pockets" of special interests, or who has revised his/her thinking over the years on any given topic?

 

[blutoski]

Not fraud - these funds would be spent on public works projects as you described, but surely the entity controlling these non-governmental monies would decide which projects would receive funding, wouldn't it? No different from a charity deciding to focus on some localities over others. Being a political entity, its decisions would almost certainly have a political dimension.

And considering the GOP platform of reducing taxes for the wealthy, the 'extra money' would technically be spent within the letter of the intention, if cheques were written to the highest earners, in proportion to what they already have.

Not sure I see the appeal.

 

[Varanid]

I think that the crux of the issue is trying to find a way to allow citizens (be they rich or poor) to have a relatively equal voice (one (wo)man, one vote) in their government, without stifling creative, innovative, scientific or artistic avenues to express this voice.

I don't think it is fair to tell someone they can't express their opinion in X fashion, but I do think their is an inherent fairness in trying to equalize the difference in voice held by the elites vs. the masses.

Then again, maybe this isn't such a good idea....

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Why don't we just allow politicians to buy votes on a logarithmic scale? Money gets put paid to the state, politicians get 1 extra vote for $10, 2 for $100, 3 for $1,000 and so on.
Cut out the middle man, save us all from campaign ads.