Price of the Presidency

Last week's US presidential election was a cliffhanger — it could not have been closer in terms of the split of the popular vote.

Underpinning all the hoopla of this very American contest was, of course, a vast amount of money — over $2-billion spent by each candidate.

I have no doubt that to get your message through to 300 million Americans across a landmass the size of the USA is a big ask but still $2-billion per candidate?

The obvious drawback of a system requiring such a huge spend to get elected is that it severely restricts voter choice to those who have the backing of one of the few parties capable of raising such large sums and a clear advantage to those in Congressional contests who are able to substantially bank-roll their own campaigns.

 So my view is that money speaks too loudly in US elections. That is not to say that there is not some real merit in allowing political parties to justify their appeal by having to raise their own funds (I would not want to see taxpayer funding) but there surely has to be some limit in order to ensure that money itself is not a prohibitive barrier to running for office.

In the UK I am pleased to say that we have spending limits for General Election campaigns and these are closely monitored and enforced. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 introduced a national spend per party equal to the £30,000 per seat contested.

This means that generally the two main political parties spend £15-million to £20-million each when there is a General Election. A lot, I accept, but some way short of billions.

For news and views please visit http://www.melstridemp.com">www.melstridemp.com