Sunday, Oct. 29, 2006 | 7:55 a.m.
I am a political junkie from a long line of political junkies, but this campaign season has really turned my stomach. If I hear the phrase "outside of the mainstream" or "out of touch with Nevada" one more time, I may run for office myself.
As Billy Joel once sang in another context, "all it takes are looks and a whole lot of money." I of course have neither, but if I sold my soul to cash-heavy special interests, I too could be viable. Such is the sad state of Nevada and ultimately national politics.
Is there not a candidate out there with a record to run on? Doesn't anyone want to talk about their accomplishments? All I hear, day in and day out, are half-witted appeals to the lowest common denominator, attempts to tar opponents with a broad brush that paints them into a corner. I expect better from people who want to lead the state or represent us in Washington.
It seems the only people who are willing to run on their record are those with a weak opposition. This is what democracy has become, a contest between different piles of money competing for television time. Issues be damned! We are only going to talk about what might have been, not what should be.
There are issues that matter this year. The state of Nevada's schools, immigration, the health care system, the war in Iraq, the question of whether we can trust our leaders and, of course, growth, all loom large, but they are far from the discourse.
What if we set the bar higher? What if Nevada became the first state in the union to put a cap on political spending? What if we put limits not only on how much a candidate could spend, but also on how that money could be raised?
Imagine this. We could fix the governor's race at $1 million and all the statewide elective offices would follow on a downward sliding scale. The statewide offices would get more than local offices, for people who have to campaign throughout the enormous breadth of the state would need more than those with more limited areas to cover.
We would know a great deal more about our candidates than we do now. On a fixed budget, candidates would have to be money managers. We would also know a great deal more about their priorities, for we would not see the overflowing war chests that we do today. Candidates would have to decide what they wanted us to know and they would have to be efficient in spreading their messages.
They would also have to avail themselves of opportunities to reach the public that they did not have to pay for. This would mean more direct contact with the public, more candidates' forums and debates, more stump speeches and barbecues.
Aspiring officeholders would have to work much harder than they do now, and the work would mean much more. Serious candidates would know their constituents well. We would also be on closer terms with them. We might even return to the first-name basis that long characterized Nevada politics.
Even more, we could put strict limits on how candidates could receive money. Instead of allowing affiliated groups to sully our politics, we could simply bar all private money and create a mechanism that funds our politics. We could get all private money out of politics and level the playing field. Maybe we could lay off the cost on visitors like we do so many other things in the Silver State.
Democracy started in town-size environments and it still works best in intimate settings. Nevada is still small enough that we can have grass-roots democracy.
We could remove the acrid stink of special interest money from our politics and turn back the clock to a time when people of differing political persuasions actually talked to each other. Who knows? It might work. One person, one vote. It was always a good idea.
archive
