Monday, September 17, 2007
Wealth and Presidential Candidates
At the end of this past March several Presidential hopefuls submitted their fundraising totals to the Federal Election Commission. I was shocked at the amount of money that had already been raised nearly two years before the new President would be inaugurated. The top three candidates on either side of the aisle had raised over 12 million dollars each. In total the Democratic party had raised over $78 million and Republicans over $53 million. I will probably never see that much money in my life. It made me wonder who really are the Presidential candidates, and can any of them relate to me, with all my college debt, will they really be able to represent my interests. In May the candidates were required to report their finances to the FEC. Most of the candidates, Democrats and Republicans, were millionaires and all of them made more than the average American. It is understandable why the candidates, in the first fundraising quarter, are already pulling in such large sums; in a race this close money may buy you the extra thousand votes you need to win. However; it has limited those who have a legitimate chance of winning the party nomination to those who have the most money, not necessarily the best candidate for the job. The glossy ad we saw in class that Mitt Romney is pushing on Florida and South Carolina is a good example of what a lot of money can buy. $21 million plus, can buy a whole lot of positive advertising. Candidates with less money to spend have a harder time getting their names out. The Mitt Romney commercial was also a lot more visually appealing than it was substantive, in fact the only thing that sticks in my mind is the picture of him running, not his policy positions. But in the era of candidate centered campaigns a positive image, such as Romney running, appeals to voters, who may not care what his stance on gun control, or other issues are. This idea of appealing to voters and being seen Presidential has become the key to winning the 2008 election. This election will not be won on policy, but instead will be won on charisma.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
True, due to campaign $ a candidate who can afford T.V. ads etc. will raise their name ID more than someone who may be short the money needed to do the same. However, I believe it will play a big difference in the primaries but not so much in a general election.
In the primary, a democratic candidate shares most of the same principles as their rival. Not always, but in general there are many similarities. Thus, an extra T.V. ad may put a positive spin on one candidate over the other and win a voter over.
When it comes to the general election it's republican vs. democrat and the differences are striking. It's just hard to believe that Fred Thompson might beat Clinton due his charisma when issues such as the war in Iraq, illegal immigration and climate change are dominating political debate on all levels. When it comes to the war, these to candidates have extremely different viewpoints. As the most important issue of our day, I doubt an extra T.V. ad will blind voters to a candidate's position on that issue. Sure, there are people out there who don't pay attention at all and may be brainwashed by a 30 second clip of Clinton smiling but I think when it comes down to it a candidates position on issues will win the election.
Post a Comment