Making democracy safer and fairer: A proposal to limit political campaign spending

In recent years, the staggering growth in election campaign spending has become a real threat to the health of democracy. As political campaigns increasingly rely on vast sums of money to dominate advertising platforms, small parties and independent candidates find themselves unable to compete, leaving voters with fewer choices and often alienating them from the political process. To protect our democracy from being hijacked by billionaires and big corporate donors, we must rethink how election campaigns are conducted.

I propose a bold yet simple reform: banning election campaign advertising and replacing it with a fair, centralised system for distributing political information. Here’s how it would work:

A new approach to election campaigns

1. Manifesto submissions:
   Political parties would be required to submit a 5-10 page manifesto to the independent electoral organisation, in the case of the UK, this would be the Electoral Commission, responsible for conducting the country’s elections. This manifesto would outline their key policies and vision for governance.
2. Single document distribution:
   The electoral organisation would compile all submitted manifestos into a single, cohesive document and distribute it to every household in the relevant election ward, constituency, or country. This ensures that all voters have equal access to information about every party and candidate.
3. Fact-checking:
   To prevent misinformation, the manifestos would be vetted for inaccuracies by the independent electoral body before publication. This step is crucial to maintaining trust in the system.
4. Digital presence:
   Parties would retain the freedom to publish additional content on their websites (only under domain names pre-submitted to the electoral organisation), allowing voters who wish to dive deeper into specific issues the opportunity to do so.
5. No paid advertising:
   Paid advertisements, both online and offline, would be banned. This levels the playing field, ensuring that no party can drown out the voices of others simply by outspending them.
6. Debates with equal airtime:
   Television, streaming, and radio debates would be permitted, but with strict rules ensuring equal airtime for all parties. This guarantees voters hear from a range of perspectives.
7. State-funded awareness campaigns:
   The state would cover the costs of producing and distributing election materials and running awareness campaigns to encourage voter participation.

Why this matters

Our democracy is under threat from the unchecked influence of money. Campaigns financed by billionaires and corporate donors distort the democratic process, giving disproportionate power to the wealthiest individuals and organisations. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both“.

The role of money in undermining democracy

Let’s consider a couple of recent examples of how money has tilted the scales in elections:

• The 2024 U.S. presidential election: The spending in the 2024 elections has once again broken records, with over $16 billion estimated to have been spent across all races. Billionaire-backed super PACs and dark money groups poured unprecedented funds into targeted ads and battleground states, heavily influencing voter perception and turnout.
• In the UK: The 2024 general elections saw major parties relying on large corporate donations to fund their campaigns, with some critics arguing that this money disproportionately shaped campaign strategies. Reports highlighted that smaller parties struggled to gain visibility due to their limited budgets, leading to an uneven playing field. We are hearing, unconfirmed reports, that a famous billionaire might pump millions into a UK political party to help fund their 2029 general election campaign.

The trend is clear: big money drowns out the voices of ordinary voters, making it increasingly difficult for policies that serve the public good to gain traction.

The moral imperative for change

Former President Barack Obama aptly pointed out, “A government that truly represents these Americans … cannot be bought“. Yet, the influence of money in politics suggests otherwise. The system rewards those who can spend the most, not those with the best ideas. This undermines the very foundation of democracy.

By implementing the proposed changes, we can:

• Level the playing field for all political parties and candidates.
• Ensure voters have access to accurate, unbiased information.
• Encourage genuine public discourse and reduce the divisive, soundbite-driven nature of modern campaigns.

A call for ideas

This proposal is just one way to tackle the corrosive effects of money in politics. What are your thoughts? Are there alternative approaches to ensuring fairer elections and reducing the influence of money? Let’s start a conversation about how we can protect our democracy from being sold to the highest bidder.

Together, we can build a system that prioritises ideas and integrity over wealth and influence. Share your suggestions in the comments below, and let’s fight for a democracy that works for everyone.

Update 31/12/2024:
I just got Google’s Gemini AI, via Google NotebookLM, to generate a podcast of this blog. Incredible result. Listen below and judge for yourself.

First dropped: December 24, 2024 | Last modified: December 31, 2024