Celebrity Campaigning

The 2008 presidential race has quickly increased to become of the most expensive presidential campaign ever. In order to be considered a legitimate candidate, one must raise or provide millions of dollars to keep up with the other candidates. With such demanding financial needs candidates look to big contributors to help finance their bids for presidency.

The Federal Election Commission has recently released information about donors and who they contributed money too. Not surprisingly a lot of high profile celebrity’s names are on these lists. Many of the celebrities donated the maximum allowed by law. Donations can’t exceed $4,600, which although seems insignificant with respect to some of the celebrities fortunes, still helps to boost the candidates total campaign funds. Do you agree or disagree that there should be a maximum donation? By capping the amount that an individual can donate are they leveling the playing filed so none of the candidates can benefit from a particularly generous donor.

A list of celebrities and who they have donated to can be found on CNN’s website. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/16/celebrity.contributions/index.html . A lot of the celebrity donations have gone to democratic candidates, who in past elections have been closely tied to the liberal party. Do you feel that by doing this, celebrities want to give themselves good public relations, or are they really interested in the political matters that each of these candidates stand for? For example Steven Spielberg gave to three different Democratic candidates, all the same amount of money. Is he attempting to help these candidates with this smaller donation, or is he attempting to get good press for his philanthropy?

By releasing these records do you think that they are giving voters more reasons to make uninformed votes based on their celebrity allegiances?

The Money That Makes Campaigns Go Round....

I recently read an article on the New York Times about "Donors Linked to the Clinton's Shift to Obama" and it got me thinking about the amount of money going into the 2008 Presidential Elections.

It seems to me like the 2008 campaign is becoming an auction and bidders are becoming floaters. I thought supporters kept it in the family, I guess not. "A list of Mr. Obama's top fund-raisers released Sunday showed the extent to which the Democratic Party establishment, once presumed to back Mrs. Clinton, has become more fragmented and drifted into her rival's camp, lending the early stages of the Democratic primary campaign the feeling of family feud" (NY Times). When I first read this, I wondered if that was legal jumping of ship.

I never really knew what when into financing a presidential candidate. Senator Hillary Clinton has raised $19.6 million for the primary, and $6.9 million for use in the general election. Senator Barack Obama has raised $24.8 million for the primary and a mere $1 million for the general elections. What crazy about all this money, is the fact that it has been raised in (FIRST QUARTER). I can't even begin to image what the second quarter will look like.

I can't even begin to think about how you spend all this money. I wonder what this election will be like given the fact that campaign budgets are so high, will it be about commercials, advertisements or the debates? Will campaigns be really negative or remain positive and who will throw the first curve ball and what will it cost?

The more I think about it the more it sickens me to see the kind of money invested in these campaigns when we have homeless people on the streets, children who can't read or go to college because their parents can't afford it, people who have not been able to heat their homes because oil prices are so high, and soldiers over in Iraq dying. I guess I look at all the money and wonder what if their was a cap on what you could campaign with and the rest that you raise must go towards a good cause in the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us/politics/16donate.html?ref=politics

Injured NJ Governor

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1610672,00.html

Recently, Governor Corzine of New Jersey was injured in a car accident. The article above explains how severly he was injured and also the details of the accident. The accident actually happened on his way from a meeting with Don Imus to another meeting with the Rutgers women's basketball team. He was put on a ventilator and is still unable to talk.

Recent incidents such as Mr. and Mrs. Edwards coming out about her battle with cancer and Senator McCain and his age and health are causing discussion of their ability to run the country. I felt that this unfortunate occurrence relates to these situations. Gov. Corzine is currently in office and has sustained many injuries that are very serious and is still on a ventilator prohibiting him from speaking. He also is just starting to recognize his family and become coherent. Although, doctors do think Corzine will make a successful recovery, they are not sure of how long it will take. I ask the class, with all talk about the candidates for presidency, do you think that people will now see Corzine as unfit to be Gov. Also, say he does make a successful recovery, will people still doubt his ablilty because of the extensive injuries he sustained? Furthermore, is it even fair to be judging Corzine for something that he could not control? Does this accident and his injuries make him any less fit for the job he currently holds?

If his recovery time becomes very long, what does everyone think should be done? Do we take this job away from him or allow him to continue to be governor even though he is still in the hospital? What would you want to see happen?

Image of Divorce.

So far this semester we have focused closely on how important the image of a President or politician is. The media these days really makes it a priority to disclose any positive or negative material on a leaders past and present personal life. It seems more so that we are drawn to the more gossip type information that is released. Marriage and relationships have been in the spotlight recently, and something we have discussed in our media profiles from past Presidents; their relationship with their wives and families. According to divorced statistics, the number of people who divorced quadrupled between the 1970’s and 1990's, and assuming the trend, divorce rates ore than likely have risen since then. According to a Newsweek article, there are people known as “values voters” following that up with the fact that Mitt Romney is the only presidential candidate that is still married “happily”. The former Massachusetts Republican Governor, Bill Weld is quoted by saying that Romney's family is “all kinds of clean”. (A word we have heard before using to describe a candidate’s image – what do you think about that?) The overall question I’m posing is, does divorce or a broken up family affect a politicians image in a damaging way during his campaign? Do your own values about families and divorce affect your perception and possibly your decision about a candidate? Do you think a person’s religion will tie into the aspect of “value’s voters” / How much? And lastly, image aside, do you think a person who has gone through a divorce or numerous divorces and marriages effects their actual job as a politician? Do you think that it is better to have a well rounded, somewhat perfect looking family as a candidate….or do you think that every family or relationship has issues that, without press attention it would go unnoticed, but assumed? Do you think the press exploits a politician personal life and relationships too much, turning the focus away from their actual issues and campaign?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17662271/site/newsweek/


- Lauren Trent.

Is Hillary really playing the gender card?

The Los Angeles Times recently featured a story about democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. The news wasn’t about her latest stop on the campaign trail, a discussion of her issues, or even another awkward appearance that she had made. Instead, the LA Times addressed Mrs. Clinton’s obvious difference from her opponents; she is a woman and what that means for her campaign.

The article titled, “Clinton gladly plays the gender card” reignites the earliest topics of discussion when Hillary first formally announced she was in the race. The article focuses on the women’s vote and how Hillary is getting a lockdown on it with the feminist backings such as EMILY’s list and NOW. Not only will these women’s groups campaign hard for Hillary but they will provide serious funding to her campaign just because she is a woman.

The women’s vote is quite valuable. The article mentions, “in 2006, women accounted for 51% of votes cast, women represent as much as 60% of registered voters in early Democratic primary and caucus states” (Braun 1). The article also mentions other women’s groups that are aligning themselves with other candidates. In reality, all candidates go after the women’s vote. So how is Clinton playing the gender card?

If you take a look at Hillary Clinton’s official website, the main page prominently displays what she calls a “Featured Action.” This featured action happens to be “Women for Hillary.” Is this what they mean by playing the gender card? Or perhaps it is the cute terms Clinton uses on her main site such as “Hillraisers” for fundraising, “Hillcasts” short videos featured on her site, or “Hillgrams” the emails she sends to her supporters.

In your opinion, do you think Hillary is really playing the gender card?

If you think Hillary is playing the gender card, do you think that it could hurt her chances with men as well as women? Do you think all the support from feminist groups is justified just because she is the only female candidate?

Related Article :

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-hillary7apr07,0,3339210,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Hillary Clinton’s official website :

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Should We Count McCain Out?

The once former Republican nomination front runner, John McCain is now struggling in the polls and placed last for fundraising between the top six candidates. In Chris Cillizza’s Washington Post blog entry (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/can_mccain_win.html?nav=rss_blog), he expresses the notion that McCain needs to find his footing in order to get back on top. Cillizza believes that even though McCain hasn’t had much success lately, it is still too early to count him out of the race. He supports this argument with a few main points. His first argument is that McCain’s campaign is organized. His campaign has constantly been unveiling new endorsements in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Another argument in McCain’s favor, is the Republican party history and how some candidates who ran unsuccessfully for its nomination for one election, were nominated in following years (Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole). Thirdly, McCain has already had some experience for running for President in the past. He knows how to pace his campaign, so he will be able to last for the long haul. Fourthly, McCain is a close second to Rudy Giuliani in most state surveys and national polls, so he definitely isn’t far out of voters’ minds. Lastly, McCain is a likeable candidate. Do you agree with Cillizza’s blog posting that it is too early to count McCain out? Why/why not? Is there anything else McCain has going for him not mentioned in Cillizza’s blog that could be used to his advantage?

McCain has realized he hasn’t been doing as well as he hoped and in a way to help bring back vigor into his campaign, this week McCain will begin to actively support the idea that the war in Iraq is winnable. He believes this will be the issue that defines his campaign. He argues that it is imperative for American security to have a victory in Iraq. Do you think by doing this, it will help to “reignite his stalling bid for the presidency” (Shear)? If you were in charge of McCain’s campaign, what would you do to breathe new life into his campaign? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040602202.html

Limitations on Campaign Spending

A New York Times editorial recently addressed the issue of the primary and general presidential elections spending. Because of the excessive amounts of money that candidates spend on their campaigns and are given by wealthy private interest groups and individuals (especially during the primary election), the issue of whether or not there should be money limitations becomes an issue of great importance.It was recently reported in a Quarterly fund-rasing results report that Clinton has raised $26 million, Obama has raised $25 million and Romney has already raised $20 million while there is still 19 months left before the election (www.nytimes.com). It was said in the editorial that a candidate's ability to raise money for the election puts an automatic damper on the race because the more money a candidate is able to raise, the more likely to win the Presidency they are and this is then really just a representation of private interest group opinion rather than the general American public. (To read the article-http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/opinion/05thu1.html ).If a candidate is going to be able to use unlimited private funding for their campaign, then can it be said that the position of the president is given to the candidate who can raise the most money and not who would be best fit? And is the election controlled by the large corporations and wealthy private individuals who are able to give large amounts of money to the candidate of their choice and control public opinion this way?There was a Campaign Finance Law that was created, however it is optional for the candidates to abide by. (To read more about terms and conditions- http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Disclosure ). Basically, if a candidate decides to agree to the terms of the Law, there are limitations made as to how much private funding they may receive and the amount they receive from Public funding is proportional to that. This way, the Presidential race is not descriminatory towards those who are not as fortunate in being given exessive amounts of money from private individuals and the election can be much fairer in that it does a better job in voicing the opinions of the public rather than just those large and wealthy corporations and individuals.Do you agree that this finance law should be made mandatory to all candidates? And also do you think it will be successful in controlling the election from being manipulated by the special interestests groups or individuals with significant financial recourses?