2008 Woodie Awards
Vote Absentee
'Tis the season for political donations
The Voice of the Observer
Issue date: 1/30/07 Section: Observations
- Page 1 of 1
The race for the 2008 election is already underway and the list of contenders is ever growing.
Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware to name a few.
These individuals, looking for a shot at the job of chief executive, are going to have to raise a whole lot of money in order to last long in the campaigning season.
However, in recent times, it has become a competition not of who has the best plans and ideas for this country, but instead, a competition of who can raise the most amount of money.
Candidates will have to have at least $100 million to be taken seriously. According to a Jan. 23 New York Times article, it is estimated that the total spent by candidates in the upcoming election will total more than $1 billion with the two main candidates raising $500 million each.
This number is far-off considering that in the 2004 presidential election, President George Bush raised around $270 million and Sen. John Kerry raised an estimated $235 million.
It is believed that many of those running for president will opt out of the public financing and instead look to private donors for financial support.
The public financing system was set up so candidates did not have to depend on big donors, thereby reducing their influence over the office and ending corruption in election campaigns.
But, those who participate have to agree to set spending limits - and because of these limits, they cannot compete with those who do not take part in it.
Some candidates, like Clinton, realize that they can raise a great deal more money in private donations than through public financing. They obviously pick the former route.
This is a dangerous precedent for a couple of reasons:
First, only big names will be able to compete in the races, regardless to any good (or bad) ideas they may have. It now becomes a popularity contest based only on photo-ops and sound bytes and it squeezes out any small candidate who normally would never have a chance to raise enormous sums of cash.
Second, it strengthens any hold powerful individuals and corporations in the country may have on the candidates. Money buys influence and candidates may now feel obligated to the donors, setting their policy based on the wishes and desires of their benefactors. It is time for major reform in the campaign election system, especially in the public financing system to prevent this from getting out of control.
Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware to name a few.
These individuals, looking for a shot at the job of chief executive, are going to have to raise a whole lot of money in order to last long in the campaigning season.
However, in recent times, it has become a competition not of who has the best plans and ideas for this country, but instead, a competition of who can raise the most amount of money.
Candidates will have to have at least $100 million to be taken seriously. According to a Jan. 23 New York Times article, it is estimated that the total spent by candidates in the upcoming election will total more than $1 billion with the two main candidates raising $500 million each.
This number is far-off considering that in the 2004 presidential election, President George Bush raised around $270 million and Sen. John Kerry raised an estimated $235 million.
It is believed that many of those running for president will opt out of the public financing and instead look to private donors for financial support.
The public financing system was set up so candidates did not have to depend on big donors, thereby reducing their influence over the office and ending corruption in election campaigns.
But, those who participate have to agree to set spending limits - and because of these limits, they cannot compete with those who do not take part in it.
Some candidates, like Clinton, realize that they can raise a great deal more money in private donations than through public financing. They obviously pick the former route.
This is a dangerous precedent for a couple of reasons:
First, only big names will be able to compete in the races, regardless to any good (or bad) ideas they may have. It now becomes a popularity contest based only on photo-ops and sound bytes and it squeezes out any small candidate who normally would never have a chance to raise enormous sums of cash.
Second, it strengthens any hold powerful individuals and corporations in the country may have on the candidates. Money buys influence and candidates may now feel obligated to the donors, setting their policy based on the wishes and desires of their benefactors. It is time for major reform in the campaign election system, especially in the public financing system to prevent this from getting out of control.
Be the first to comment on this story