More Substance, Less Money

UPDATED: April 20, 2015, at 11:48 a.m.

It’s the most wonderful time of the year: Fresh off the heels of the 2014 midterm election, politicians have begun announcing their candidacies for the 2016 presidential election. From Hillary Clinton accidentally telling the world she “fought children and families all her career” to Rand Paul selling autographed copies of the Constitution printed in gold leaf for $1,000, the fun has only just begun.

Despite the ridiculousness of some of the campaign tactics so far, the fact remains that this election will undoubtedly be a historic one. Our next leader will have to deal with problems internationally in Russia and the Middle East, in addition to domestic issues such as the racial tensions that came to the forefront of the public consciousness in a dramatic way this fall. But before the next president confronts these issues, he or she must first face the grueling gauntlet of the primary process—unfortunately, that process has become increasingly reliant on the amount of money that a given candidate is able to raise.

During the lead-up to this latest election, we have once again been reminded of the desperate need for campaign finance reform. We are troubled by the fact that many politicians today are valued for their ability to raise money rather than their ability to govern. The resignation of Illinois Republican Aaron Schock, who was valued mostly for his ability to raise money for other young Republicans, is yet another reminder of the problems inherent in our electoral system. No representative should be better known for his Instagram profile than for his legislative record.

We find this conflict between governing and raising money deeply troubling. Those who finance campaigns in the United States have an incredible power in the electoral process; recent statistics suggest that fewer than 700 thousand people were responsible for all of the donations of $200 or more to campaigns, parties, and political action committees during the 2014 election. In other words, those who spent the most on elections accounted for only 0.2 percent of the population. The implications of these numbers are troublingly clear: Elections in the United States are for sale. In order to preserve the democratic process in this country, fundamental reforms are necessary.

According to the Washington Post, groups allied with prominent Republican backers Charles and David Koch plan to spend nearly $1 billion supporting Republican candidates in the upcoming election. This level of spending is unfortunately nothing new; further, it is an amount of money that is nearly as much as either of the major parties. An electoral system that allows two extravagantly wealthy men to have as much financial influence as the two major political parties must be fundamentally reformed.

There is clearly something wrong with a political system that prioritizes the impact of money over actual substantive policy ideas. Keeping the amount of money spent on the election from spiraling out of control is crucial—our politicians should represent all their constituents, not just a few wealthy backers. It’s time for America to take its elections back.

CORRECTION: April 20, 2015

An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that Aaron Schock was from Ohio. In fact, he is from Illinois.