Campaign Financing and Constituent Communal Bonds
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:45 am
I often come across internet posts complaining about the need to 'take back the government,' often from elected representatives who are in-the-hip-pocket and/or wholly-owned-subsidiaries of deep-pocketed campaign donors. They are often fairly stunned when I mention that, by reducing district size and increasing the number of representatives, the campaign finance beast would effectively be killed, or at least severely hobbled. Most don't even realize that the limit of 435 seats in the House is artificially set, and that such an artificial limitation flies in the face of the founders' intent!
Thus, it would seem, to me, that the largest and most immediate benefit of increasing the size of the House, while decreasing the size of individual districts, would be the enabling effect this move would have on the average citizen who cannot, at present, AFFORD to mount a viable run for office. Large districts require immense canvassing efforts, which require massive funding, the hunt for which in turn drives the campaign finance beast. Thus, from the outset, it is incumbent on any candidate to create financial bonds with, and thus become more or less beholden to, those who finance their outreach/campaign, rather than with the larger mass of their intended constituents.
Once elected, incumbents are then required to spend a considerable amount of time away from representing his or her district, and more time on the hunt for campaign funds.
Moreover, a person would hope to be elected based on communal ties, but, by virtue of the insane size of districts, would have to reach outside what would be considered the traditional definition of 'community' in order to appeal to constituencies with which he or she really has no ties whatsoever. Thus, from the outset, current districts, by virtue of their sheer size, demand a disconnect between the candidate/representative and their natural, communal constituency. Campaigning becomes more a matter of marketing than of reputation and argument.
Also, any elected representative is likely to have had to water down his campaign effort, in order to reach beyond local constituent issues and appeal more to regional partisan political practicalities. Smaller districts would seem to make campaigning a more communal rite to be celebrated by the electorate than a practical hurdle to be overcome by the candidate.
Discussion?
Thus, it would seem, to me, that the largest and most immediate benefit of increasing the size of the House, while decreasing the size of individual districts, would be the enabling effect this move would have on the average citizen who cannot, at present, AFFORD to mount a viable run for office. Large districts require immense canvassing efforts, which require massive funding, the hunt for which in turn drives the campaign finance beast. Thus, from the outset, it is incumbent on any candidate to create financial bonds with, and thus become more or less beholden to, those who finance their outreach/campaign, rather than with the larger mass of their intended constituents.
Once elected, incumbents are then required to spend a considerable amount of time away from representing his or her district, and more time on the hunt for campaign funds.
Moreover, a person would hope to be elected based on communal ties, but, by virtue of the insane size of districts, would have to reach outside what would be considered the traditional definition of 'community' in order to appeal to constituencies with which he or she really has no ties whatsoever. Thus, from the outset, current districts, by virtue of their sheer size, demand a disconnect between the candidate/representative and their natural, communal constituency. Campaigning becomes more a matter of marketing than of reputation and argument.
Also, any elected representative is likely to have had to water down his campaign effort, in order to reach beyond local constituent issues and appeal more to regional partisan political practicalities. Smaller districts would seem to make campaigning a more communal rite to be celebrated by the electorate than a practical hurdle to be overcome by the candidate.
Discussion?