My plan to cap spending on presidential, congressional elections

The cost involved in seeking elective office at the congressional and presidential levels has risen to the point where it is unrealistic for most worthy citizens in this country to aspire for high public office.

Reform and control of these costs must be implemented. lest we become a nation led by wealth-based nobility (of the personal variety and that contributed by the seekers of governmental largesse).

To a lesser extent, this is true at all other levels of elected office. The following is a brief outline of a proposal offered to level the playing field and hopefully provide a means for the less affluent to seek and attain elective office.

Members of the House of Representatives are elected for a two-year period from a district within a state; senators are elected for a six-year period from a state; and the president is elected for four years from the 50 states and territories.

For their elected service, the salary for a member of the House or Senate is $174,000 per year (leadership positions receive a bit more) and for the president $400,000 per year.

I propose that a spending limit for each election held for a seat in the House of Representatives be one-fourth of the salary for that two-year elective period, or approximately $87,000.

The limit for Senate elections would be half of the salary for their six-year elective period, or approximately $500,000. The limit for presidential elections would be equal to their full salary for their four-year elective period, or approximately $1.6 million (since we lump the president/vice president election together, perhaps this limit could be raised to $2.4 million).

These suggested limitations are in recognition of the populace each office serves.

As a means of comparison: In the last election, the expenditure for winning a seat in the House was approximately $1 million and in the Senate approximately $5.9 million, with the presidential position being $1.6 billion.

Such sums are far beyond the reach of all but the most affluent and their supporters, thus effectively excluding most of the citizens from aspiring to elective service to the nation. This, in turn, precludes us from having some of the best minds in the country serving the nation.

A side benefit in restricting the levels of spending would be to shorten the electioneering time involved, and it might force the candidates to concentrate on what they have done in office (or propose to do if elected). Having fewer total funds to devote to campaigning for election could also reduce the funds available for the negative campaigning they all engage in.

I have not run the figures on it, but this might also be a means of having the elections paid for in their entirety by the $2 check-off on our tax forms. Thus we could truly have a democratic process.

An illustration of the potential effect such limitations might have can be found by looking at the campaign funds available to Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich. (You’ve read of his legislative initiative to provide a $3,500 tax deduction for pet owners). Of his 2009/10 campaign funds totaling somewhat over $500,000, some 56 percent come from political action committees — not from the people.

I once lived in the district from which Rep. McCotter is elected and knew any number of citizens who were able and who would not have introduced such frivolous legislation.

Maybe they have all left the district.

Bayne’s column runs every Sunday on the editorial page.