Should There Be More Extensive Campaign Regulation?

The process by which parties select their nominees for president are excessive and unbalanced. In 2008 the process about six months, beginning in January and ending in June. The problem with the system is that early caucuses or primaries get more publicity and attention from the candidates. Trends suggest that there is a domino effect amongst the party primaries. If early primaries move towards one candidate the other states typically follow suit, thus, putting way more emphasis on the primaries in January than the primaries in June. The system could and should be fixed through rigid campaign regulation and a short set time period where the primaries must occur.

Campaign regulation is necessary in order to make the primary process a more efficient and fair system. Currently, candidates are dumping tons of time and money into a select few states and leaving other states out to dry. A fix to this problem could be to set campaign laws regulating the amount of time and money that can be spent in particular states. For example, If the candidates have one million dollars to spend during the primaries; instead of allowing them spend three-fourths of that money in the seven January primaries, regulate the amount they can spend so that it is spread evenly all over the 50 states. Also, have a set amount of hours a candidate can spend on campaign work, i.e. rallies, speeches, or debates. It would make being elected president more affordable and less "survival of the richest." It would help the smaller candidates that can't afford to keep up with the massive money raisers like Clinton, Obama, and McCain. Of course, in America this would be seen as leftist and un-capitalistic making it a very unfeasible proposition. American's tend to steer away from change especially if it promotes ideas that are semi-"socialist" or left-wing. Unless campaign time and money is regulated and split evenly amongst all fifty states than the process will continue to be unbalanced in favor of early primaries. Regulating the campaign process would make it cheaper and more cost efficient for the candidates and could potentially end the struggle to be an early primary. However, in order to make this part of the process viable the primary calender must be changed.

In order to make the entire process more fair and efficient there should be a set day on which the entire country holds their primaries. The national election takes place over the course of one day and the candidates spend, for the most part, equal time in the states aside from the traditionally red and blue states that aren't likely to sway. This is how the primary process should be handled. Candidates are limited on the time and money they can spend in each state in the months before the primary date. With a system like this, there is no incentive for candidates to spend extra time and money in particular states. This also abolishes the domino effect of states voting in the direction of one candidate. In theory the process would work like this: candidates would spend their allotted time campaigning in the year prior to the primaries in all fifty states evenly and then all states would vote on the same day to eliminate the unbalance of earlier primaries. This would help the smaller candidates, first, by allowing them to afford the presidential process, and second, by placing them on the same stage as the other candidates.

If there was a chance at changing the primary process, this may serve as a good brainchild for a better plan. However, the process is so entrenched in American culture and in the capitalistic ideal that the prospect of primary reform is not really feasible. This reform suggestion helps the less wealthy candidates and potentially harms the more wealthy when it comes to advertising buying power. Hopefully, however it helps America by providing an even playing field for all candidates and allowing the most intelligent and more qualified individuals to win their primaries rather than the richest and best advertiser.