Estimates of the total cost of campaigning at this year’s US Presidential election are tipped to reach US$2.6 billion dollars, the largest total ever – read more here and here. Critics claim that this is still less than what Americans spend:
- each year on chewing gum, or
- each week on the war (or re-building) in Iraq, or
- each week at the movie box office, or
- annually on the recreational sport of hunting.
I can’t find figures for how much is spent in Australia on political campaigns, although early estimates after the 2004 election had the two major parties spending $20 million each on advertising.
I have a real issue with the cost of political campaigning – whilst campaigning is necessary, the majority of these costs could be put to better use. I also take issue with the fundamental imbalance that exists in funding availability – the incumbent party (the government) has far more resources at its disposal than the opposition party, and of course the minor parties. This gives the government a significant advantage at election time to promote its messages.
To make elections fairer (and much more interesting) I propose that each major party is given the same amount of money to campaign with, with the smaller parties provided with a pro rata amount. This would mean each party is campaigning on an equal footing, and would lead to some more creative communication strategies. I’d love to see some well considered and targeted viral campaigns (e.g. Big Ad and Flash Beer) that we actually wouldn’t mind watching, or even passing onto our friends. Based on their viral campaigns, if the election campaign involved voting for a beer, surely Carlton Draught would be the Prime Minister!
This post is tagged
2 Comments
I would love to see Kevin Rudd doing the Flashbeer ad.
I completely agree with you on the issue of an equal playing field in terms of campaign budgets. That the incumbent party has all these (taxpayer sourced) funds at their disposal just isn’t fair.
Every time I see the current government trot out another misleading and spin-laden advertising campaign which I know that I am paying for, I get really angry.
I don’t know exatly how the US system works, but over there it least seems as though both parties have to do their own fundraising, and aren’t allowed to dip into the nations coffers to finance their campaigns. It’s still not ideal, and does inevitably lead to the huge piles of money you mentioned in your post, but it seems a better way to do things.
Incoming Links
Leave a Reply