I Figured Out How To Fix Campaign Financing

Send me the Nobel Peace Prize. Or, if I'm over-reaching, a MacArthur grant. Fine. Chocolate medallion wrapped in gold foil. Wrapped in a Ziploc bag?

I'll tell you what, humanity. You give me a bag of M&Ms now, and after my idea revolutionizes Presidential campaigns in America, I'll pick up the rest of my gratitude.

Nod to reality: actually, I don't feel like acknowledging reality. WHAT IS ABOUT TO FOLLOW IS THE MOST AMAZING IDEA IN THE WORLD.

Currently, candidates for federal office have two options for funding their campaigns: accept federal money but be limited to how much money one can raise, or reject federal money but be able to raise and spend as much money as one wants.

Many candidates in both the primaries and general election forgo federal funding because the spending restrictions would put them at a crippling disadvantage. Both President Bush and Senator Kerry turned down federal funding in the primary season because of this.

My opinion is that the excess of money in the campaign system creates an unlevel playing field to any candidate with a significant amount of money more than his or her opponents. The advertising buying power and media coverage that money brings drowns out the voices of lesser-funded candidates and prevents most Americans from being able to give them fair consideration.

One option is to increase the amount of federal matching funds given to candidates. Considering how great an effect a President can have on America's future, and how we should do everything possible to ensure that the best candidates are nominated and have a chance to win, this isn't a bad solution.

If it costs $200 million dollars for voters to get to choose from 6 good candidates instead of 2, isn't that worth it, at least for the Presidential election?

There is a better solution though. Here is my big idea. It's a game theory approach to the issue. Instead of offering each candidate federal funding individually, we pool the money together, and if one candidate decides to opt out of federal funding, that money is split among the other candidates.

Let's say Candidates A and B are offered $125 million each for their election campaign. Candidate A says, "I could raise $200 million on my own. I'm going to pass on federal funds." But then Candidate B will get his $125 million, giving him a total of $250 million if he decides to accept federal funding, which Candidate B probably will do now.

So what is Candidate A going to go? Accept federal money. Not for his gain, but because if he doesn't, it will put him in a worse situation than his opponent: having to spend months of his time raising $250 million or more against his opponent who would have all that money without having to spend the time and resources to get it.

This works for primaries too, where I think funding plays the biggest role. Let's say there are 6 Democratic nominees that meet the eligibility requirements for federal funding. The pool of money is $120 million, or $20 million for each candidate.

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have already passed on federal funding for the primaries. Let's say they pass because they can earn $50 million on their own. But by them forgoing federal funds, the other 4 candidates now get $10 million more, from $20 million to $30 million.

Still a disadvantage, but less of one. The fewer candidates that accept federal funding, the more it benefits other candidates to accept it. In essence, any candidate who forgoes funds is automatically giving all of his opponents free money, narrowing the funding gap among them and administering an extra penalty for not accepting public financing.

The system becomes self-balancing and fair, provided some thought is placed into the funding amounts. The current flaws in our federal financing system is only part of the problem money plays in politics, but I also think it is one of the easiest parts to fix.