Are political campaigns too long?

With the 2024 elections looming ominously in the near distance—November 5, in case you’ve been hibernating—campaign financing is again front and center. I’m not sure it is as big a problem as those on the left and right would have us believe. Rich people on both sides of the political spectrum are handing out huge piles of Benjamins. There is a good chance that it evens out in the nationwide aggregate over time. Besides, contributions are speech and speech should remain as free as the Constitution made it.

But there is a nexus between money and the lengths of campaigns. Money means so much because our election seasons are so long. They essentially stretch from one election to the next. There is no time out.

So, limit campaign lengths--no campaigning of any kind, stealth or otherwise, until three weeks before a primary or election day. At the same time limit all campaign contributions to the time one week before the campaign until its end. Then limit the amount a candidate receives, or provide government funding, to limit as much as possible the buying of elections.

Despite the threat of stealth campaigning, the positives far outweigh the negatives, and rules would have to be listed with stiff fines attached. Here is a list of some of those positives.

• Reduces costs and influence because the shortening limits the need for fundraising. This tends to limit single groups or individuals from dominating the process. The time for exploring issues and engaging the public would be truncated thereby causing more efficient campaigning.
• Increases participation by providing a crisp and limited period of activity. Prolonged campaigns can wear out voters. The short European campaigns prove that voters can gather and comprehend pertinent information within a shorter timeframe. Technology makes the vetting of candidates easy to do during the campaign.
• Can encourage more candidates since campaign costs are more manageable. This can ensure a fairer representation of candidates while reducing reliance on big donors. Candidates can focus on policies for public benefit rather than catering to special interests. Government funding of campaigns might even be possible.
• Political corruption can be limited or even prevented because campaign contributions would be reduced, which might prevent politicians from being swayed by large donors, especially if government funding were available.

Then you can turn off your TV and disable your telephone for a mere three weeks.

Reality check: A large industry exists to support the campaigns. Any shortening of the campaigns would cause considerable financial losses for those supporting campaigns. We can expect a monumental pushback from lawyers, sign makers, advisory offices, videographers, TV and radio stations, all of which would be claiming violations of the First Amendment. The voting public would have to engage in a herculean fight to get any changes. But we can dream.