05/12/2000

Would You Run for Office?

I've never thought about running for political office, but even if I wanted to, I couldn't. I'm not rich enough. It's true. All American citizens, age 18 or over, can vote, to be sure, but the only names on the ballot, aside from write-ins, will be the names of people who have enough money to finance a campaign, especially in the national political races. That doesn't seem right to me. I want to be represented in Congress by the people who are most qualified to govern. Wealth certainly doesn't guarantee that!

I think I've read more about how much money George W. Bush has spent during his campaign than about what he stands for. It's as if he were more determined to buy the presidency rather than to earn voters' support for concrete proposals to solve national and international problems.

The political platforms candidates espouse are also controlled in large part by dollars - the dollars of large corporations. Public demands for campaign finance reform have generated a lot of rhetoric but little legislative action. Special interest groups with mega-dollars are just as active and influential as ever.

Look how long it has taken (and how much it has cost) to get guilty verdicts against tobacco companies. Many states have received millions of dollars in settlements, but little of the money makes its way into programs to prevent teen smoking. So even with guilty verdicts and huge financial settlements, few public health measures have been taken. Big money speaks again.

I support the use of corporate generosity for charitable causes, but don't think such dollars belong in political coffers to buy candidates, write their platforms and buy our votes. Let's work out a system of political finance reform that caps spending, provides free media access to candidates, and puts the onus on a well-informed citizenry to sort out the issues and elect its public officials.

Access to the Internet could give individuals more access to candidates - to participate in live debates in local, state and national races. Chatrooms can provide forums for focussed discussion about individual candidates' positions on various issues. Such discussions can occur "live" and can also be archived so that citizens can read the text of each debate at a time convenient for them.

The Internet could also be used to increase voter turnout by working out a system for individuals to cast their votes online. We've figured out how to make secure financial transactions online; certainly we can figure out how to allow one and only one vote per person per candidate during elections.

When engaging in political discussions with friends, I'm struck by how well-informed they are about the issues that affect them most. They do their homework and back up their opinions with facts and figures. But when I encourage them to go public and run for office, they decline. Why? Because the political process makes mincemeat out of earnest candidates, they say. They hear media reports that distort candidates' views; and watch in disgust as mean-spirited opponents insult candidates and smear their families. There seems to be more effort put into discrediting candidates' views than providing fair and balanced coverage of them, leaving it to the electorate to decide whose views they support. Politics is just too tawdry and demeaning, they say.

We need to change these perceptions of public service, so that the best and brightest men and women from all walks of life will not only make it their business to be informed about the affairs of state, but will also proudly enter the political arena, for at least a few of their professional years, and guide our affairs of state. Keep in mind that children are more likely to imitate what we do than what we say-we need to inspire them to enter public service, as well.

One major step toward that goal would be to level the financial playing field, making it possible for any qualified candidate to run for elective office.

Please send questions or comments to bbruno@snet.net.