Campaign Dollars Could Be Better Spent Elsewhere

[OnePimpTiger]

CNN Commentary: Food banks instead of campaign ads

I don't necessarily think all of the money should go to food banks, but I am appalled at the amount of money Presidential candidates, as well as candidates for other offices, spend on advertising. I know it's seen as a necessity to get your picture and name out there as much as possible, but it's gotten ridiculous. I've never understood how it can make that much of a difference anyway. I guess there are people out there that can be swayed this way. I've always known where I stand before I see commercials, so basically they're just an annoyance to me.

But all the candidates talk about change and making a difference in America and helping out the middle class, then spend millions of dollars on TV commercials. I'm sure the middle class could use some of those millions in one way or another. If you really want to make a difference, spend those millions of dollars on something that actually can make a difference. It would be better press and publicity than any commercial you put on the air. But I think things are so screwed up now that if a candidate actually did want to change things and did something like that, they would have no chance of winning.

[ensbergcollector]

It will never happen but I think it would be a good idea if we put a cap on campaign spending. It would cause the candidates to re-think what kinds of ads they want to put out and go with a more quality over quantity route.
I know it will never happen because, like this year, Obama has received twice the amount as mccain so it wouldn't be fair to penalize him. But if there was some way for 1/2 their money to go to something worthwhile, I think we would know who the candidates are and lots of people would benefit.

[OnePimpTiger]

It will never happen but I think it would be a good idea if we put a cap on campaign spending. It would cause the candidates to re-think what kinds of ads they want to put out and go with a more quality over quantity route.

I agree. And it would put more emphasis on actual debates and interviews. I think the debates should be the main forum for candidates to get their ideas out there. In debates and interviews, they have to explain their platforms and defend their choices instead of just pointing fingers in 30 second TV spots.

[maccards44]

Some "food for thought" (get it?)... This political season is keeping many television stations around the country afloat, probably entire networks in fact.
Advertising revenue on TV, newspaper & magazines is in the TANK, with one large exception - campaign ads. You can think what you want about the campaign ads and whether or not they are a waste, but the money that goes into them doesn't go into a vaccum, it gets recycled back into the economy as well.

As for debates & forums they are a great idea, but they don't reach as many undecided voters as good old fashioned campaign ads. I'd say most people who are bothering watching debates already know who they are voting for.

[Yanksfan396]

It will never happen but I think it would be a good idea if we put a cap on campaign spending. It would cause the candidates to re-think what kinds of ads they want to put out and go with a more quality over quantity route.
I know it will never happen because, like this year, Obama has received twice the amount as mccain so it wouldn't be fair to penalize him. But if there was some way for 1/2 their money to go to something worthwhile, I think we would know who the candidates are and lots of people would benefit.

I agree whole-heartedly. This will add an entirely new strategy. But does this prevent supporters from donating if the cap is reached?

[maccards44]

Wouldn't a cap be the opposite of a free market?
You seem to be talking about stifling capitalism, campaign ads are a form of moneymaking too.

[OnePimpTiger]

You can think what you want about the campaign ads and whether or not they are a waste, but the money that goes into them doesn't go into a vaccum, it gets recycled back into the economy as well.

That's very true and I hadn't thought of it that way.

As for debates & forums they are a great idea, but they don't reach as many undecided voters as good old fashioned campaign ads.

I think that's the truly sad part in all of this...people's opinions are actually being formed by obviously biased 30 second commercials. I'd like to think that without the commercials, people would have more curiosity to tune into the debates to get some information at least...but I know that most likely would not be the case.

Wouldn't a cap be the opposite of a free market?
You seem to be talking about stifling capitalism, campaign ads are a form of moneymaking too.

Is candidate spending considered considered consumer-driven spending or is it government increasing it's scope into other aspects of citizen life?

[maccards44]

Is candidate spending considered considered consumer-driven spending or is it government increasing it's scope into other aspects of citizen life?

I think so... (the first one) IF the Dem or Rep party is a "consumer" in that equation. I guess I would argue if one party wants to spend more to get the message out and they have the money to spend why should anyone tell them not to. If there were a cap - who would get to decide that & how much could be problematic as well.

On the flip side, why do you think this has been the longest campaign in as long as anyone can remember?...answer - because tv likes it that way

[OnePimpTiger]

I guess I would argue if one party wants to spend more to get the message out and they have the money to spend why should anyone tell them not to.

But doesn't "whoever has the most money can buy the most commercials" result in elections basically being bought? At present, there is a difference in the amount of spending, but it's not a huge difference...not large enough that one candidate is getting a vast amount of exposure while the other is getting little. But in theory, it's basically whoever can get their name and face out there more by spending more money can win the election, regardless of issues and platforms.

I guess it could also be pointed out that more people donating could imply more people supporting a certain candidate. But that isn't necessarily true...perhaps just more people who are willing to donate supporting a certain candidate.

It's definitely an argument that has pros and cons for both sides...

[RedGoneWILD]

if there was a cap, then i'd want it to be like 5 or 10 million dollars...something ridiculously low...so that i wouldn't be bombarded with tv commercials every day for 3 months straight...or allow candidates to tour the country, but restrict the amount of tv/radio ads....people would have to pay attention to the candidates and the debates (even though they can be boring), as opposed to being exposed to so many sly, well-crafted, advertisements...we've been buying kraft mac & cheese for all these years based on the same tactics...also, then maybe some third party candidates might have a voice as well