political correction

has anyone had the time to get a sum total of what all presidential candidates spend during an election? or even just during the primaries. i haven't made the time, because i know the amount would appall me more than what i already imagine. you always see articles about how much hillary got at a fundraiser, or how many millions mitt spent in a given state. the numbers are astronomical, and grow every year. does anyone else wonder what other, better purposes that money could serve? plus this just perpetuates our system of government where your chances of being elected is determined most by how much you can raise and spend on a campaign. (which in turn perpetuates our flawed "two party system.")

what if, instead of the various much-talked-about yet never enacted "campaign reforms," all candidates, regardless of party or name recognition, were given an equal number of print ads, and tv and radio spots in each state, and were barred from purchasing more. what if all candidates were thusly equalled, and the only benefit to be gained from fundraising was to show how much your campaign was donating to charity, or sponsoring programs that the government no longer will? sure, establish a set of constitutional standards, so these equal shares of advertising aren't wasted on some nut-job who just want his fifteen minutes. just let the money be used for something useful, or at least less corrupt than buying political favors, which is all making large campaign donations is. this would also let the voters of all fifty states learn about all the candidates. since i don't live in iowa or new hampshire, i don't hear a near as much. worse still, i'm in utah, which is so notoriously republican that neither party wants to "waste" their money on advertising here.

long term, let's work for some meaningful, helpful campaign reform. short term, let's just vote for a third party candidate!