In the ongoing struggle between our great nation's two political parties, Republicans and Democrats, there appears to be a dramatic increase in the cost required to administrate a successful campaign. There have risen factions among the people who find the cost of campaigns and the means by which such funds are acquired to be somewhat unethical and have taken action to reform them, if possible. The questions, however, remain. What can be done to help? How can we as the people who vote in these elections insure that every candidate has a fair chance to win regardless of how much money they can muster over the year before the election? The answer lies in legislation that is, even now, being run through both sides of our Congress in an attempt to fix this terrible system of Campaign Financing.

Certainly the most costly aspect of running a campaign lies in advertisement, whether it be through Television or written media. Buying TV and radio time for pro-candidate or anti-opponent advertisements is by far what sucks up the most capital. What can be done to even this out, to make TV advertisements in particular a more equitable medium for stimulating the voters? The answer lies in the TV, not any candidate or political party. Corporations must see the need to provide for candidates ample space so that candidates can advertise on TV without having the need to spend million upon millions of dollars in donated money. In this way, also, it will be made more fair, as every candidate will have a fair chance and equal time on each station, and the election and it's advertisements are not dictated solely by the candidate who was able to raise more money.

It is unreal and outrageous, the fact that a middle class candidate who represents the people to the fullest, and could not obtain donations enough to sufficiently advertise his candidacy, would lose out to the upper class candidate who received millions of dollars from billionaire corporations interested in influencing legislation. Therefore, I believe it is the duty of all corporations, and all citizens of this nation, to contribute to a collective fund, which would be equally distributed among candidates running for office. Also, there must be a regulation and eventually an elimination of Political Action Committees (PAC's). PAC's have a chief contribution to the notion that money can influence legislation and the political mindset of candidates (McCain, 32)

Another pressing issue is how to truly limit and regulate contributions. We must redefine what an acceptable contribution is, and severely limit the means by which these funds are donated by the contributors and how they are obtained by the candidates. An idea that should be under serious consideration relies heavily on the abolishment of out-of-state contributions. Apparently a great percentage of the capital obtained comes from out-of-state donors, which present the problem that this candidate could have no direct bearing on the lives or laws of these donors. It has been suggested that a limit of 40 percent of acquired funds can come from out-of-state sources, suggesting that her that obtains 60 percent of his funds from in-state donors is clearly supported in the state he seeks to represent (McCain, 32).

Campaign finance is a serious issue facing our nation this day. It is our duty as Americans to insure each and every nominated candidate for each office a fair chance at winning, so that they are not forced to rely upon funds fronted by corporations concerned about influencing legislation. For instance, if two candidates were running for an office, one supporting Tobacco Legislation and the other opposed, the one opposed would most likely be given several hundred thousand dollars by leading tobacco companies, thus giving him more funds to advertise with, thus increasing his chances of winning. So it is up to we, the electorate, to elect the proper officials to enact legislation to make funding for campaigns a more equal area.