It’s almost the eve of Election 2024, and we’ve had a lot of campaign related issues ranging from financing to negative advertisements.

Elon Musk really brought campaign finance questions to the forefront with his $75 million donation to the Trump campaign. It was followed by an offer to award one voter a day one million dollars if they’ve signed his pledge about free speech and the right to bear arms.

It calls for some type of mandate to limit campaign contributions. I think it would be good to go as low as $100 per person.

It’s in line with the idea of making voters equal, making it so that the wealthy can’t pour money into campaigns for public offices.

If one million voters gave a candidate $100, it would generate $100 million. That number is very possible in a Presidential race. Chances are the candidates could collect much more.

One person should not have nearly the same money influence as one million people who each donate $100. Even a person living in near poverty who is dependent on Social Security can probably manage to give $100 to campaigns. Their donations would count just like their votes count.

I personally wouldn’t sign Musk’s pledge for a chance to win a million dollars. It’s the principle of the thing. Being true to myself means staying with my views of the issues.

On free speech he’d pretty much let people say anything they want. I think everyone should have a legal and moral obligation to think about what they say before they say it.

Too much freedom to bear arms could lead to gun possession by unstable people. There have been plenty of shootings in the past several years where the shooter should not have been allowed to have firearms.

There are people who would just sign the pledge whether they agree with it or not. That would give the appearance of widespread agreement, something that Musk can point toward as evidence that his ideas are popular.

Much of his $75 million has probably gone to advertising and social media, something that could make the campaign even more negative in its closing days.

This year we even have negative yard signs that tell people Harris is soft on crime and that she favors a completely open border.

I’m disappointed that people were willing to post that type of sign. They’ve allowed their front yards to become sites for negative politics. They’re helping their candiate spread exaggerations and generalities about the opposition.

Traditionally a yard sign just states the name of the candidate, which asks people to consider supporting him or her. The opposition isn’t mentioned. That’s a better way to express views.

The question becomes whether or not there’s anything that could be done about the negative trends or if they’re just a part of life in the 21st century.

I think something could be done if media took a backseat to in person campaign activities. We could use some lighted evening parades organized by state and local party officials.

We need more hog roasts. We need more town hall meetings. It would all depend on whether people attend. It depends on if they’ll get off the couch and out of the house for a chance to meet the candidates.

A great deal of importance is placed on every election. We have to remember that they’re just one step in the process of having a government. They’re a beginning. The real work starts after all the votes are counted and we find out which candidates won.

The important thing on Election Day or beforehand is to vote. Even people who don’t have money to spend on campaigns and who don’t own property have a rights to cast their ballots.

When they vote, they add themselves to the decision making process. If they stay home they allow other people to make the decisions.

Others are more than happy to make the decisions if they’re given the opportunity. It’s important to make sure instead that election results accurately reflect the view of the general public.

— Andrew Napolitano is a former New Jersey Superior Court judge and a columnist