In a jaw-dropping display of financial mismanagement, Kamala Harris’s campaign reportedly burned through over $1 billion in just three months, only to end up in defeat. It’s hard not to see the irony here. This level of wasteful spending should raise serious questions—not just about her campaign strategy but also about her competency in managing resources. If this is how she handles her own campaign budget, can you imagine what she might have done with the national budget? We might have dodged a bullet by keeping her out of the Oval Office.

Where Did All That Money Go?

It’s almost hard to fathom how a campaign can spend that much in such a short time frame. Let’s break it down: a billion dollars in three months averages out to over $11 million per day. For that kind of money, you could buy a fleet of private jets or even fund a small country’s healthcare system! Due to this obscene spending, the campaign ended $20 million in debt. How wasteful must they have been? Were they serving filet mignon at every volunteer meeting or using designer pens to sign every contract?

If we take a closer look, it’s clear that much of this waste likely went into endless TV ads, flashy rallies, and over-the-top PR stunts. It’s like the campaign staff were trying to win the election through sheer force of spending rather than sound strategy and genuine connection with voters. It makes you wonder: if Harris couldn’t manage her own campaign’s finances, what on earth would she have done to our economy?

The Bigger Problem: Campaign Spending Is Out of Control

Harris’s campaign fiasco points to a much larger issue: the astronomical cost of running for public office in America today. Political campaigns have become arms races of spending, with each side trying to outdo the other with bigger rallies, more ads, and flashier social media campaigns. It’s no longer about who has the best policies or who can lead the country effectively—it’s about who can spend the most money the fastest.

But this isn’t just a Kamala Harris problem; it’s a problem for both parties. We’ve seen billionaires throw their own fortunes into the ring, and special interests pour in untold millions to back their preferred candidates. Instead of a battle of ideas, we get a battle of bank accounts. And who ends up paying the price? The American voter, who is bombarded with political ads but left in the dark about where the candidates really stand on the issues.

Could We Rethink How We Run Elections?

The way we conduct political campaigns in America has spiraled out of control. Candidates now raise and spend billions, with most of that money going toward relentless attack ads, slick sound bites, and flashy marketing stunts. These efforts do little to inform voters about real issues or help them make better choices. So, here’s a radical question: could we make our elections less about spending and more about substance?

What if we banned political ads altogether? Yes, I know, this idea isn’t exactly practical, but stick with me for a moment. Imagine a system where, instead of bombarding voters with divisive ads, every candidate had to rely on a standardized platform to communicate their vision. The goal? Level the playing field and refocus elections on ideas rather than dollar signs.

A New Way to Communicate with Voters

Picture this: a simple government-run website and a mailer sent to every registered voter. This platform would provide a comprehensive and unbiased overview of each candidate’s track record, policy positions, and plans for the future. It could include:

• Voting Records: How has the candidate voted on key issues?
• Policy Positions: What does the candidate support or oppose?
• Proposed Plans: What specific actions would they take if elected?

This isn’t about promoting the government as a campaign manager but creating a tool to cut through the noise. Voters would have access to clear, accurate, and digestible information, all in one place. No need to sift through biased ads or spin-filled speeches—just the facts.

Neutrality Is Key

Of course, for this to work, the platform would need strict safeguards to ensure neutrality. No candidate should get more space or a better presentation than another. Perhaps an independent, bipartisan commission could oversee the process to maintain fairness. And while no system is perfect, it’s worth exploring how we could remove bias while still ensuring transparency.

The Benefits

If we could pull this off, the benefits would be immense:

1. Dramatic Cost Savings: Billions of dollars would no longer be spent on ads that often mislead more than inform. Those funds could be redirected toward real public service efforts or simply left in the pockets of donors.
2. A More Informed Electorate: Voters could compare candidates side by side, based on facts and policy, instead of who has the flashiest ad campaign or the nastiest attack line.
3. Less Polarization: Without the constant barrage of inflammatory ads, we might see a reduction in the divisiveness that currently defines our elections.

Challenges to Consider

Of course, there are challenges. Political ads are deeply ingrained in how campaigns are run, and many argue they’re essential to free speech. Some voters might resist a government-run platform, fearing it could become biased or overly bureaucratic—which would be a legitimate concern. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t explore alternatives. At the very least, it’s a conversation worth having.

A Vision for Better Elections

It’s clear that the current system isn’t working as it should. Elections are no longer about who has the best ideas—they’re about who can outspend their opponents. If we want to preserve the integrity of our democracy, we need to rethink how we run our campaigns. A simple, standardized system for sharing information could be a small but significant step in the right direction. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s one worth considering as we look for ways to elevate substance over spending.

What do you think? Could this idea work? Or is it just a pipe dream? Either way, one thing is clear: it’s time to start putting voters—and the truth—at the center of our elections again.