OVER HERE - LESS THAN ZERO
Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 02:54PM Do I use "Less than Zero" to refer to the Bush approval ratings? Ron Paul's chances of becoming President? Barack Obama's substantive ideas? Or Valentine's Day Cards Bill Clinton Received from Hillary since the Monica Mess? No, gentle readers, I refer of course to the difference between the political parties when it comes to needing money for the campaign process.
The marathon in the United States known as the Presidential Election season has expanded beyond all hope and reason. To Everything There is A Season here in the States has to be modified to read To Every Season There Are Candidates. The cost of running a national campaign is staggering. Television, Radio and Internet. Mailings, rallies, phone banks and staff. Primaries that require get out the vote organizations, legal challenges and costly advertising.
Candidates from both parties spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising. They have no choice. And they go to where the money is - corporations, unions, the wealthy and the organized. As the Good Lord might have said, the rich we will have with us always. Where does that leave the common man?
Campaign Finance Reform works as well as a New Orleans Levee. Whatever rules you create, these folks find away around them before the ink is dry on the new rules. Is there some solution? Revolution is untidy, relocation of the electorate involves moving and I hate packing, and of course Australia is no longer a Penal Colony so we can't send our politicians there in chains. We simply have to accept the fact that all of our politicians require the money and we have to use our voices (through media, internet and voting) to punish those who unduly abuse the system - even when they are from our side.
What do you, the sensible members of the ATW community think about money and politics?
America 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (22)
Hold all the primaries on the same day. That would cut the cost of the election in half and be fairer.
Henry94 -a valid argument that is gaining some momentum here in the U.S.
The one thing I really dislike about American politics is the fact that in order to get elected you have to be filthy stinking rich!
Mahons, how true is it that the candidate with the most money always wins?
In recent history how true is this?
Pinky: I am not sure if the candidate with the most money usually wins, but it certainly narrows the field and leaves the candidates beholden to special interests. Take Bill Clinton for example. Before he became President he was not especially rich (humble beginnings, and a life in government). But he was a great fundraiser.
Mahons, I will clarify: The candidate with the biggest funds.
P.S How's the better half doing? Is she feeling well?
Mahons: "They have no choice. And they go to where the money is - corporations, unions, the wealthy and the organized. As the Good Lord might have said, the rich we will have with us always. Where does that leave the common man? "
You're living in the past.
The "common man" is being courted online. It was the "common man" - by this I assume he who donates in small amounts, $10, $15? - that made Howard Dean's run for the Presidency so interesting. Dean harnessed the internet and became to champion of the small donation. Hundreds of thousands of small donators. Candidates are trying to copy this today.
Hillary has solved the problem posed by bundling.....and of course there's been some major cheating (because McCain-Feingold limits the total amount that can be contributed to a campaign) but that's another story.
Surely the 2 big parties in the states are rolling in cash. Why don't they set up a fund from which all candidates with a certain level of support can draw?
BTW, if a candidate withdraws from the race, for whatever reason, what happens all the unused $$$?
Pinky -Thanks for asking and good to see you on here. The better half is in the home stretch for the next 4-6 weeks. Needless to say, I tiptoe around the place.
Patty: Don't all good conservatives live in the past (or at least long for a time that never really was). The internet has indeed provided an opportunity to reach out to us groundlings, however, do you think you'll be sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom any time soon?
Noel: There are certain claims of free speech issues that arise whenever you try to regulate campaign contributions. There are certain federal matching guidelines that candidates can consider. If a candidate withdraws or is defeated the money usually stays under his control in some form. Personally, I'd send mine to the Cayman Islands.
Pinky,
"Mahons, how true is it that the candidate with the most money always wins?"
It is probably more revealing to say that the winner usually raises the most money - i.e. winning the election and raising the most cash have the same cause, that the candidate is a winner.
Didn't the freakonomics guy look at that and find that there was either no effect or a very small effect (i.e. money might shift your vote by 1% but it would not generally change a loser into a winner).
"(i.e. money might shift your vote by 1% but it would not generally change a loser into a winner)."
Well a 1% uniform swing wouldn't alter things that much, but presumably if it's focused on the swing states then it wouldn't be uniform. 5% in Ohio and Florida wouldn't mean much to the national share of the vote but it could be crucial in a electoral college system.
"What do you, the sensible members of the ATW community think about money and politics?</i"
Only the sensible ones?
Ross: Good eye.
Federalise the funding. Even the playing field so that the entire process becomes substance oriented.
Accept private donation into the superfund from anyone also.
these systems are used in several countries if memory serves.
I like Henry's idea the best. It's the most practical and achievable. McCain/Feingold was/is a joke. While there may be movement in the small or internet donor field, the big money has always been corporate, lobbyists, and the very wealthy. They drive much of the political landscape in our country.
You're a damn fool, whatever side of the aisle, if you think your politician hasn't been bought and isn't being held accountable to his major industrial and well-heeled friends who purchased the seat for him.
That's my highly cynical take - I think us plebes are just considered income generators and cannon fodder, nothing more.
Why not completely alter your whole election process so that it copies the British system. Let the Republican and Democrat parties choose their leader (who will be candidate for president) at internal party conferences without much public campaigning, and then have a legally sanctioned short 21 day national campaign for the presidential election , instead of the 21 months you seem to have now.
Colm: Interesting, but has the British example produced better results?
The primary season was intended for the parties to view how candidates would fare in regional contests (ex. Could a urban politician generate appeal in a farm state, could a Western candidate win in the East etc).
I am not so down on the idea of primaries as I am on the extended nature of them now. A shorter season might be better, but the candidates would still be running years in advance.
One thing that does amaze me about the UK is the Q&A in the H of C. I wish we had something like that.
Mahons
Who cares of it produces better results. At least we are spared the insufferableness of a never ending votegrubbingfest.
Colm: Very good point.
Daytripper, seveal European countries - albeit with parliament-based governments - have funding systems like that, but I don't see why it wouldnt also work in the US. A party receives money from the exchequer literally for each vote it obtains in an election; these funds are used to finance the next election campaign.
Makes for an unchanging party landscape perhaps, but new parties can get onto the funding ladder through successes in local elections.
Noel -if the parties are ever bipartisan, it will be on resisting that.