I've been doing some thinking lately about Instinct, Choice, and Habit, but before I finish scribing that one out, I read on Glenn Reynold's Instapundit site today about the problems in campaign financials. The good professor says that allowing unlimited campaign contributions is a better approach. Being the free market guy that I am, that appeals to me, but actually I think it allows the White House - or any office - to be purchased. Which probably happens today anyway, but I'd like to suggest a different approach. Why not let those campaigning to be president enter a microcosm and show us how they would lead? The federal government is not a place where the finances available are unlimited. No, they're limited. In fact, the more limited, the better. What I would rather see is to give the candidates a fixed budget - say $1 million - and that's the maximum. They can show us then how they can stretch that budget. What creativity would they employ to get their message out? Because if they frivolously spend unbelievable sums to get there, isn't the habit of spending spending spending a hard habit to break? And that's a huge problem in Washington. Keep in mind, if our nation did something like this, I don't think that citizens should be at all limited in their free speech. If they choose to create ads, purchase radio or TV time, and air what they want to say, I'm all for it. If they choose to write about their political views, I'm all for it. But the campaign? It has to live within its means, because that's what Washington should do, yet never does. Why not start that habit before you get there? |
