This past weekend Democratic candidate Tom Vilsack decided to drop out of the 2008 election race and declared that the only reason why he did so was because he wouldn't have the budget to sustain himself during the race. "It's money, and only money, that is the reason we are leaving today," said Tom Vilsack.
With the insane amounts of money that go into a campaign, it begs one to ask the question of whether or not the right people are running for office, or is it just those who can afford to? I know that we live in a country where those with the money have the power, although when I think about it, I also ask myself are these the best people for the job (the presidency), or are they just the ones with the most cash?
Compared other running Democrat, Barack Obama who netted around $1. 3 million in just one fundraising appearence, Tom Vilsack only pulled around $1 million in 2006 alone and ended the year with around $396,000 in his bankroll.
When Bush ran for re-election in 2004 the total cost of his campaign was around $419 million. An executive director for the Center of Responsive Politics, a group which tracks money in politics said that if predicitions hold true, the cost for the republican and democratic nominees will double from what it was last time.
Link to article - http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/23/vilsack.money/index.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Money and political influence have gone hand in hand ever since we began the election process in this country. The process of getting elected has always been about money and it is a pretty safe assumption that money and political influence can never be separated. If anything, it is getting worse. It is becoming harder and harder to remain a force in politics without a huge sum of money. All candidates are usually extremely wealthy to start with but that is not even enough. They depend a lot on money they get from fundraisers and supporters. It is ultimately the well known candidates who know how to raise the most money, and therefore can spend the most money, who will be the ones that are the most successful campaigners. The campaign for the 2008 election is supposed to break all kinds of records just based on the fact that the campaigning has started so early. CNN predicted that the candidate that ultimately gets nominated will need a half a billion dollars to make it though the ’08 election. That is an insane amount of money, money that an average Joe would never be able to come up with. Therefore, I think it will remain that those who will continue to be the most influential in politics are the ones with the money, and the ones who are well known enough to continue to raise money. You have to have enough money to start out with, to make a name for yourself so you can continue bringing in funds. But especially at the federal level, the primary source of the campaign funds starts with the individual. Money brings power and influence and I don’t see that changing any time soon. If anything, it is becoming much worse, and if you want to have any kind of power or influence in politics, you better have a pretty big bank account.
It is indeed ridiculous the amount of money that needs to go into campaigns (especially when one starts campaigning very far in advance). With each race, candidates are challenged to the max, and like the CNN article states, even adjusted to inflation from over the years, campaigns these days are costing double what they did 30 years ago. In some occasions, since you do need so much money to run that the wrong people run for presidency. However, at the same time, in this country money equals power, it has always been like this, and we are never going to be able to get away from this.
On the other hand, no offense to the Democratic candidate, Tom Vilsack, because although I am sure he had some great plans for the future, there really is no sense on him continuning to run when he is up against some very popular names. Even if Tom Vilsack had all the money in the world, there really is no name recognition to him nationally, so it would be a waste of time for him to invest in a campaign. Barack and Hillary, who may not be the perfect candidates themselves, know how to promote themselves, know how to speak well, and already have names that are very popular and recognizable nation-wide.
Overall, I do think that it is ridiculous the amount of money that needs to be invested into campaigns. Sometimes because of that investment, the wrong people may run, however, it isn't solely based on who has the most money. Popularity and name-recognition nation-wide also play a huge role in campaigns. Lastly, don't we want candidates who already have government experience and knowledge? Most likely, those who have a great deal of government experience are already getting paid the big bucks and can afford running for presidency (especially those who have great pr to get their names out there in order to get a very supportive constituency).
I do think it's a shame that when running for such a great postion such as the United States President, money can play such a large role. I mean, there could really be some individuals out there with great potential, however they will never be recognized or have the chance to lead our country because of the fact that they are not these "rock star" candidates as the CNN article described.
It is also unbeleivable to see how much the costs of these Presidential campaigns has increased in the last 30 years or so. I really had no idea until reading the article that running for President was so expensive; let alone the deciding factor of whether or not you are eligable to stay in the race.
So the candidates that are able to spend large sums of money to stay in the election are very forunate and hopefully realize this privelege in doing a great job in running our country.
Money really is the end all be all of campaigns in today’s America. Those who have the money make the rules. I do not believe the founding fathers wanted a society that had the most wealthy people as the ones who made all the decisions. The people of the country as a whole were supposed to be the ones that made this democracy work. The wealthy people in America have replaced the nobility of England that the original colonists were trying to get away from. In the future I can only see this problem getting worse. Those with money continue to get wealthier and continue to seek the positions with the most power.
John Canale
Post a Comment