If Money Equals Speech, It’s Time For Political Campaigns To Shut Up

Curated by

It’s time for publicly financed campaigns, period. If it’s good enough for other advanced democracies like England and Germany — where the government limits campaign spending by being the sole source of funding them — then it’s good enough for the U.S. Because this money-equals-free-speech thing clearly has gotten out of hand.


A few things stand out here:

  • Obama trumped Romney in individual campaign contributions $556M to $340M, but Romney lapped Obama with three times the Super PAC money.
  • Romney's biggest state for campaign contributions was California, a state he had no chance of winning.
  • Two-thirds of Obama’s contributions came from small donors (< $200) while Romney’s largest contributor group was large donors ($2000+).
  • The vaunted Obama “ground game” was 18% of his campaign’s overall spending (payroll and administration, for a total of $135.8M), double the spending of the Romney campaign’s 10% of spending ($63.9M).
  • The combined campaigns spent $2.85 for every man, woman, and child (U.S. population 314,785,298 Americans as per Census.gov November 18, 2012). Add in the super PACs, and total election spending grows to $4.58 per American. Just get me a gallon of gas if you're trying to buy my vote.
  • Lincoln’s campaign is the closest thing we've seen to sensible campaign finance spending. It’s time we brought that back (keep the stovepipe hat, though).

Next bit of Upworthiness:

Flash Video Embed

This video is not supported by your device. Continue browsing to find other stuff you'll love!

Hi there, internet friend. We need to talk. You're using a painfully old web browser, and frankly, it's getting a little weird. It's not safe, and we want the best for you. We think it's time to upgrade.

Download Google Chrome, and try it for a week. Don't think about it, just do it. You'll thank us later.