I do see a problem with our current media landscape and how it interacts with elections. After all, as soon as the 2010 midterm election ended, people began to talk about 2012.

And I understand how annoying negative ad campaigns can be. As a political junkie, I actually found the advertisements to be entertaining, especially when competing candidates had their ads aired back-to-back. And yes, I do see the problem in not only reducing yourself and your enemy to a 30-second sound bite, but in portraying our enemy as being the cause of everything wrong in the world.

There are problems, but do they need solutions, especially when the solutions could end being worse than the problems?

For example, let’s take the problem of negative advertisements. It’s not simply a matter of restricting commercials; commercials advertising Cheerios or the craptacular “Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II” are trying to sell you a product. Now, campaign advertisements are trying to sell you a candidate or issue, but that is a form of political speech.

As much as I hate to admit, the commercials asking “Who is Bill Brady?” are a form of political speech, and it cannot (and should not) be restricted by virtue of the First Amendment.

But advertisements occur within a small time frame. The majority of campaign advertisements only air in the months before a general election or primary election. What about the other kind of campaigning; the kind of campaigning that involves speeches to special interest groups, writing and publishing books, and getting a show on TLC?

It seems unreasonable for someone to be campaigning for an election that is years away, so why not restrict it? Not only do you run into problems of restricting political speech and activity, but it gives incumbents an unfair advantage.

The fairness aspect is my primary complaint with restricting the activities of interested candidates. Telling candidates they cannot campaign more than a year in advance for an election gives incumbents an unfair advantage because they are technically campaigning all of the time. Even though they are doing the work of the people, elected officials always keep in mind what is popular and what isn’t. A president with four years of governing, and resources, will have a lot more to say than an opponent who was allowed to campaign and fundraise for only a year.

There are problems, but the solutions cannot be found through restrictions. So, in the words of LeBron James and Eric Cartman, what should we do?

What we should do is recognize the problems, and work proactively to counteract them. Want to find out the truth about a candidate? Then read the newspaper, or research online with a reputable candidate. As great as TV is, they can only present a couple sides of the story to you. Writing does not have that limitation.

A little self-control can help too. The first thing out of Wolf Blitzer’s mouth on election night 2010 should not be about 2012; it should be about what just happened, and what happens next.

With all of the coverage, positive and negative, campaigning gets to be annoying, even for political junkies like myself. Unfortunately, I am hard pressed to think of an alternative that is consistent with the values of our country.

Again, what should we do?