Neda Ghomeshi/Staff Writer
As the 2010 Midterm Election heats up, so does the arena of political advertising. The spending on this midterm election is out of control; candidates’ campaign budgets for purchasing media time are beginning to skyrocket as the race to the finish line becomes more competitive across the nation.
According to a New York Times article published on Oct. 6, 2010, “Spending on television advertisements during this election cycle are on track to hit $3 billion by election day.”
That is more than the presidential election in 2008, which reached roughly $2.7 billion. This level of spending is unprecedented, excessive and I believe is wrong.
This dramatic increase in advertising spending is partly due to the recent decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The ruling set aside corporate spending limits in elections and paved the way for a flood of corporate money into this year’s campaigns.
Essentially, this means that unlimited corporate and institutional spending can go on without the identity of the funding sources revealed.
I believe the right to say and support whomever we want to represent us is fundamental; however, I also believe that we need to let voters know who is providing this support.
We need to know who is behind the advertisements in favor of one candidate versus another in order to better understand the agenda that is being pursued. Imagine a candidate being supported by a pharmaceutical company that is advocating an increase in drug benefits under Medicare.
As voters, we deserve to know who is behind the advertisement; this will allow us to understand the ulterior motives of the supporter. Without knowing the identity of the company or union behind a particular advertising campaign we will be missing an important fact – the benefit the supporter expects to receive if the candidate is indeed elected.
This information can help us determine if the picture being painted is accurate, semi accurate or flatly false. With no information on the identity of the financial supporters, voters, like myself, are being severely handicapped in our analysis of each candidate.
It is no wonder then that many of the campaigns are pushing the envelope on negative advertising.
Imagine a candidate being supported by a pharmaceutical company that is advocating an increase in drug benefits under Medicare.
I am also concerned about the role of foreign companies and institutions in our elections.
Under this new ruling, a candidate can receive unlimited advertising support from a foreign institution without the scrutiny of the public or media. Imagine that.
We need some form of civility to be returned to our elections. We need some curbs on what can be spent on political campaigns and we certainly need to know on whom it is being spent on.
The Supreme Court was wrong in opening up this floodgate and it is now up to the Congress to bring back the herd.
About Post Author
