A Billion Dollar Election? I think not.

When the issue of money was discussed in class, I was disturbed by the sheer amount of money that is spent on each canidate each year. One billion dollars is a lot to gamble on a canidate that has less than a 50% chance of winning. With most of that money coming from organizations trying to make political change in America, you have to wonder if that money could have been better spent.

Take the NRA for example. In the 2008 election they spent $40 million in an effort to defeat Barack Obama (according to the New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence's blog). Odviousely, this money was not well spent. When you think about how much good the NRA could have done with that money (like making an effort to inform the population about gun safety) you have to wonder what the leaders of the organization were thinking.

I think that besides making sure that the people responsible for all this cash actually contemplate what good it could do before gambling large chunks of it in the election, the federal government should put a cap on the amount overall that each canidate can raise. That cap could both make sure that the candates aren't absorbing valuable resources that could be better used elsewhere, but it also helps to even the playing field for canidates from modest means. After all, the election should be about politics, not who has the prettiest ads.