Already we hear reports that the money likely spent on the 2012 elections will be tremendous, record-breaking.
Inspired by the following story on Central Falls (RI) refusing to allow its library to close:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
... I started to wonder whether it might not be more effective (or at least more useful and possibly as effective) for people and corporations to donate money for infrastructure and jobs programs IN THE NAME OF THE POLITICAL CANDIDATE they support, as opposed to putting it all into "just another" brochure, TV ad, etc.
It seems to be that, particularly in smaller towns actually doing something would have a much larger impact than promising to do it. Used appropriately, the money would also have a longer-lasting effect (as well as benefitting the community whether or not the candidate wins). Otherwise, what have we got to show for all that money spent???
Each election cycle people in the early primary states particularly complain that they can't escape hearing about and from the candidates. They wouldn't mind hearing about public works projects and jobs, though!
Does this idea make sense to anyone else? I can foresee some kinks to work out in terms of applying this model, but surely in every community there are things that need doing that need not be overly complicated to achieve.