A seat in public office should not be for purchase

Elections run on a myth of “May the best man win.” Democracy embraces the idea that the best candidate — or the one who represents the people’s values — will prevail. In reality, the winner is typically the highest bidder; nine of 10 seats in the House of Representatives are filled by the candidate who spent more on their campaign. In almost every election — at any level of politics — money wins.  

And the cost of running for president is rocketing skyward. Winning candidates’ spending nearly quadrupled between 2000 and 2012, and the current election is gearing up to be the most expensive in history. With fewer people being able to afford to run a campaign, the ledge to become a serious candidate is rising. 

More and more, the panel of candidates skews to accommodate the independently wealthy, who can afford to spend private fortunes on their campaign. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton spent $1.4 million in 2016, while Donald Trump spent $66 million of his own money to win. 

Where does this leave the candidates who don’t share those resources? For some, the only option is to drop out. When Sen. Kamala Harris exited the race in December, one of the main reasons she cited was that her campaign didn’t have the funds to continue. 

Others are forced to call on supporters to bankroll their campaigns. Fundraising is a staple of politics, but it can disproportionately benefit the candidates who represent elite interests. A single billionaire can provide more funds than a million working class supporters — Sen. Bernie Sanders’ average donation is just $18. If you’re a candidate hemorrhaging money to stay in the running, whose support would you court? 

And while qualified individuals are priced out of running, there are candidates like billionaire Michael Bloomberg who budged his way into the election by sheer buying power alone. He has already spent $200 million on his campaign, most of it going to an incredible advertising onslaught over TV and online media. So far, Bloomberg’s $60 billion budget has bought him a fourth-place standing among the democratic candidates.

Right now, the candidates are blowing through their cash reserves in the lead-up to the primary, and a large determinant of their performance will be the amount they’re able to spend. Whichever candidate wins the nomination will then have to start fundraising to match pace with the immense spending already underway by the President Trump camp. The committees working toward his reelection have been fundraising since the first day of his presidency — and they have raised a record-breaking $736 million in that time. 

In the coming year, that money will go to endless attack ads, and teams upon teams of political consultants. The Democratic nominee will have to scramble to catch up to Trump’s financial head start, and the general election will devolve into a spending battle between two massive war chests. 

A spending cap on campaigns may alleviate some of these problems, allowing a wider and less wealthy field of candidates to take the stage. While money and politics may never be completely separated, the cash supremacy in elections devalues their democratic ideals. We shouldn’t have to pay to keep our preferred candidate on the ballot, and the office of president shouldn’t be for purchase. 

Dillon Cranston is a sophomore writing about politics. His column, “Holding Center,” runs every other Wednesday.