Does anybody else find the amount of money these candidates are raising to be positively obscene?

[bklyncowgirl]

Naturally, you don't go into a gunfight carrying a knife. As a Democrat, I want a candidate who's not going to get outgunned by the Republicans but I can't help thinking that the amounts of cash that is going to go into these campaigns is obscene.

26 million dollars for Clinton--35 if you count the 10 mil she dropped in the till from her Senate campaign (we'll call it buzz insurance), something like 16 million for Edwards. The almost unheard from Governor Bill Richardon wings in at a nice 6 mil and Biden and Dodd are also respectable at round 4 or 5 mil. Obama's people aren't saying what he's raised so far but rumors are that they have smiles on their faces which probably means he's pretty damn close to Clinton--and may have outraised her on new money.

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE TO PROMISE PEOPLE TO GET THAT SORT OF CASH? WHAT THE HELL DO YOU INTEND TO USE IT FOR? ONE THING I KNOW! THAT KIND OF MANY AIN'T COMING FROM PEOPLE LIKE ME!

Alright, I know what they're going to use if for. The good people of Iowa and New Hampshire are about to be deluged with political ads as they have never been deluged before. Every time some sweet old lady in Nashua turns on her TV there will be Senator Clinton's smiling face. Every time some farmer in Iowa goes into an electronics store he will see Barak Obama talking to senior, citizens, farmers, veterans--you name it or maybe John Edwards talking about his humble roots--or Bill Richardson touting his impressive resume--or Joe Biden just talking--and talking--and talking.

Then of course there are the attack ads. If you thought Gephardt vs Dean was a death spiral wait till you see Clinton vs Obama all Clinton vs Obama all the time!

The only thing that I can hope for is that they'll have spent all of that money by the time the primaries hit New Jersey and the candidates who survived Iowa and New Hampshire will actually have to rely on talking about thier stands on the issues.

One can only hope. But then of course, there are the Republicans.

AAAAGGGGGHHHHHH!

[movonne]

1. Yes, I wish people would vote for the ones that don't spend a lot

of money

[Colobo]

2. American politics are based on selling a product

It takes a lot of money to make it the public's favorite...

Sadly, that's what it's all about. Candidates are being sold to the public.

[Wwagsthedog]

3. Its obscene that the MSM uses money to keep score.

My avatar explains what I think of which of the "top three" has the most money.

[cassiepriam]

6. Yes. I guess the candidate who raises the most money wins.

I remember when the one who had the most votes won.
But that was long long ago. :(

[bklyncowgirl]

7. It does seem that our values are pretty screwed up.

The ability to raise tons of cash is a major prerequisite to being considered a serious candidate for president. If you don't have the money you may as well not exist. I thought that Dean in 04 may have found a way to break through the big money barrier by raising large amount of cash from small donors online but it seems that Clinton and Obama are chasing the big boys even more enthusiastically than ever before.

[cassiepriam]

9. PS I like Dennis. But he is too good, too honest and too forward thinking to be president.

Americans just don't like any of that stuff.

They want a guy with a fake southern accent and who is drunk most of the time.

[southerncrone]

28. I like Dennis, too. But America is now like a child from a dysfunctional home.

They are attracted to those who are not good for them....The slick liars & con-men & the uber-rich who got their $ by inheriting it, or stealing it from the weak.

They don't want the "nice guys" who'll treat them well, they aren't "interesting" enough. Then when they end up w/the "bad seed", they don't understand what went wrong.

Hopefully, this election the populous will see the light & wake up to the "nice guys" who are truly interested in "them". Many Americans have been hurt badly by this bunch of thugs, & God only knows how much more hurt they can put on us.

We do need to think forward like Dennis & Edwards.

[Norrin Radd]

48. Great analogy! n/t

[cassiepriam]

54. I have been saying for years that we are the dysfunctional family from hell.

America is co dependent.
Has lost critical thinking skills and its moral compass.

[cassiepriam]

55. PS BushCo is the perfect reflection of the dark side of the American psyche.

Greed, arrogance, intellectual laziness, shifting morality.

All of that is going to change however.

If adversity builds character, we will continue to have
many character building moments under the Bush Cabal.

[Eurobabe]

45. and MSM benefits with all those ads, brings $$ into their coffers.

:eyes:

It IS obscene. Congress needs to change this, no more loopholes or opting out and free airtime for candidates. No one is beholden to anyone.

:puke:

[bklyncowgirl]

51. You can see the gleam in their eyes--all those ads! Political consultants too.

Now wonder this is the most important thing ever.

[AnOhioan]

4. The hoopla over fundraising is yet another reason

for public financing. Every election season now sets a new damn record in the amount of cash being raised and spent. It IS obscene.

[MrSlayer]

5. I find the entire election structure to be obscene.

Everyone should be given the same amount of money and airtime. Let the issues decide the election not the fucking scumbag corporate donors.

[Telly Savalas]

29. Fucking scumbag corporate donors don't decide shit.

They simply provide the funding for 30 second TV spots for the candidates.

The fundamental problem with our political system is that a 30 second TV spot has the ability to sway the decisions of voters.

[MrSlayer]

46. I disagree completely.

The lobbyists who buy the congress and write the laws are almost universally corporate scumbags.

[Telly Savalas]

71. How do they buy Congress?

They give politicians money so they can afford to campaign; specifically buy airtime on TV. That's how.

If people's voting patterns weren't influenced by 30-second TV ads, there wouldn't be anything for the lobbyist to buy.

[MrSlayer]

72. Right and in return for that money and more they get to write the laws.

Always in the corporations' favor, always against the interests of the people.

What are we arguing about?

[southerncrone]

32. Completely agree.

Each media outlet should be required to give X number of minutes to each candidate per week & NO more.
All debates should be broadcast on all channels & stations. No more allowing the populous to be ignorant of the candidates & issues because they can change the channel or station.
Back in the 60's & 70's we knew who was running & what they stood for because we couldn't escape to cable TV.
The time when campaigning begins should be no more than 9 months in advance of the election date.
There should be a debate during each of those months.
The public financing of campaigns would involve paying each candidate the same amount of $ regardless of their party.

[Gregorian]

66. That is how it should be. An even playing field.

I've always thought that there was too much money getting in the way of democracy.

Money is what is wrong with America, if you want my honest opinion.

[The Gunslinger]

8. Yes I do.

It makes it next to impossible for many who could be a great leader to be president, and it almost forces anyone who runs to cozy up to the lobbyists and Corporations to have a chance. Fascism wins no matter who gets elected that way.

[Kolesar]

10. Dems raising money successfully should be considered a good thing

What if it were that Rudy Giuliani had $25 million and the best our candidates had was less than $5 million for the top fundraiser.

[bklyncowgirl]

14. You see I do consider it a good thing or rather a necessary evil.

Like I said, you don't carry a knife to a gunfight. Money is the mother's milk of politics and one of the few things that you can't have enough of. Given a choice of a Democratic candidate who will remain pure as the new driven snow or one who will do what he or she has to in order to win, I'll take the realist every day.

That doesn't mean I have to like it.

[Kolesar]

24. I expect a big media fight for the early California primary

And once again, we in Ohio will not be deciding anything with our vote. Edwards and Kucinich had not withdrawn, but John Kerry had is sewn up by early March 2006.

I agree with your thesis.

Want to do movie lines? How about "they put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue".

[bklyncowgirl]

31. I haven't voted in a contested primary since I moved from New York.

Bill Clinton vs Jerry Brown that was a good one. I was a Brown supporter but I warmed up to Clinton after Phil Donahue held a debate where he just stood back and let them go at it. The result was a surprisingly intelligent discussion between two very intelligent candidates who had been slamming and bashing each other for the previous couple of weeks.

Now that NJ is moving up to February, there may be a few candidates left in the race by the time I vote--I just hope no one can afford the NY/NJ media rates.

[Le Taz Hot]

60. California was in the same situation in 2004

and we and everyone else got stuck with, well, Bush is still president, isn't he? Maybe Ohio should think about moving up it's primary.

[Kolesar]

68. Ohio moves its primary from May to March in presidential election years

The Deaniacs nicknamed their club the "Snowbelt Democrats" because the weather is very harsh for campaigning in our district in February. Yeeeargh! It's cold!

[IndianaGreen]

11. At least you know who is buying our candidates which is also

indicative of who will get what favors once that candidate enters the White House. Why are we so surprised? Has it ever occur to anyone in here why US foreign policy is so psychotic? Who paid for what?

[bklyncowgirl]

18. Personally I think they should wear their sponsors logos on their business suits

You know, sort of like NASCAR drivers or the jockeys in the Kentucky Derby who have sponsors names stitched to their breeches. At least you'd know what you're buying.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

25. HA! I love it!

I wonder if this would embarass the candidates enough to get the money out... or if it would just be accepted as part of the process!

[bklyncowgirl]

27. Senator Blowhard brought to you be General Electric--we bring good things to light.

Including Senator Blowhard.

[IndianaGreen]

26. That's a very good idea!

Let's see who the sponsors are!

[Aussie leftie]

30. What an absolutely brilliant idea.

Imagine how all those millions of dollars could be better spent.

[NCarolinawoman]

42. Great idea! Now t.hat is worth a letter to Cafferty or a call-in to C-Span Washington Journal. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Let's just skip elections altogether.

All that hassle, getting to the polls, worrying about whether the voting machines will work properly -- just omit the whole process. On the first Tuesday in November they just count all the money each candidate has raised; the candidate with the most money wins.

Since that's basically the way it works anyhow...

[illinoisprogressive]

13. yes. problem is that you gotta have that this year to compete

When Hillary announced she was not taking matching funds and would fundraise, it raised the stakes of the money game. After that the candidates had to go this way to be competitive with her and hubby. There are 2 professional pols doing it in Camp Clinton. Billary - 2 for the price of 1 - are both raising while the others are just themselves.

[Bitwit1234]

15. I like the old time way

You never knew who was gonna be the candidate til after the convention. All the old horse trading and the delegates got to pick the candidates. The used to broadcast on TV that this one was in the lead, that one was in the lead etc. ....they didn't spend such God awful money either. The TV ads ruined it especially the attack ads. And the dems didn't start it go back and see. The republicans have always been like this.

I THINK EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT READS ANY OF THESE POSTS SHOULD WRITE THEIR REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATOR AND TELL THEM TO PASS THE FAIRNESS ACT THAT WILL CUT OFF THE LYING AND SPEWING AND THAT THE MSM WOULD HAVE TO GIVE EQUAL TIME.

[southerncrone]

33. I miss the old days, too.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. The primary system was at its best between 1972 and 1992

I don't care if Iowa and New Hampshire had too much influence, any system where living room gatherings are an effective means of campaigning is a good system.

[AtomicKitten]

16. yes

But until election reform restricts monies raised and spent across the board, I don't begrudge the Dems the ability to compete with the GOP.

However, I can't help but think how much better spent that money would be rebuilding the levees properly, helping Katrina victims, helping the poor, providing healthcare and a college education for all Americans, making America energy independent, assisting third world countries, etc.

Then again the wad spent on the military and war would be better spent that way as well.

[OHdem10]

17. It is so uplifting , I will hold my nose as

I vote knowing the person is bought and paid for.
Some Democracy.

[MethuenProgressive]

19. How much would you have paid for 534 Florida votes in 2000?

That's how many votes, if I remember right, that Bush beat Gore by in 2000.

"AAAAGGGGGHHHHHH!", indeed.

[Canuckistanian]

20. It doesn't have to be this way

Here in Canada we have several things which serve to take the money out of politics.

1. Free-time political messages on media.
Free time must be given to an approved candidate for political messages during the prescribed election period.

2. Strict limits on personal AND corporate donations.
No loopholes. No exceptions. Money, services and "gifts" all qualify for donation regulation.

3. Short Election Periods
Now, this is crucial. There are NO open-ended periods for political advertising, canvassing or rallying. They MUST take place within a short, dedicated period of time. Violators are dealt with strictly. And I'm talking about political parties themselves, not individuals. That makes parties responsible for ANY violations.

That said, we miss out on nothing in our elections. The candidates get their messages out just fine and the money involved is a mere fraction of your system, even on a per-capita basis.

[southerncrone]

34. My grandmother was from Canada; I think I might just move there!

[natrat]

21. if kucinich or gore or dean had that much and were running it would be good

with these crooks it sucks

[bklyncowgirl]

22. I'm not even suggesting that all or even most of the candidates are crooks.

I think that the system is inherently corrupting. Unfortunately, in this country if you want to win you have to play the game.

[Clark2008]

23. No - you're most definitely not alone.

I think I'll run for president so I can raise enough cash to donate to my favorite charity - my kids.

[southerncrone]

35. I'd vote for ya, Clark2008!

:hi:

[skipos]

36. "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU INTEND TO USE IT FOR? "

Well, Hillary is going to need it to get her mediocre poll numbers up. Good luck!

McCain (48%) Clinton (41%) CLINTON LOSES BY 7%
McCain (38%) Edwards (47%) EDWARDS WINS BY 9%
McCain (44%) Obama (44%) TIED

Thompson (44%) Clinton (43%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Thompson (37%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

Brownback (41%) Clinton (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Brownback (34%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Giuliani (49%) Clinton (41%) CLINTON LOSES BY 8%
Giuliani (48%) Edwards (41%) EDWARDS LOSES BY 7%
Giuliani (46%) Obama (40%) OBAMA LOSES BY 6%

Gingrich (43%) Clinton (50%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Gingrich (38%) Obama (48%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Hagel (40%) Clinton (48%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Hagel (34%) Obama (50%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Romney (41%) Clinton (50%) CLINTON WINS BY 9%
Romney (29%) Edwards (55%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Romney (36%) Obama (51%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

These are all the most recent Ras polls.

[mnhtnbb]

41. The Giuliani/Edwards numbers are PRE-Elizabeth announcement.

There is every reason to suspect Edwards would see an increase in that race as he did with the McCain and Romney numbers, which were polled AFTER the Elizabeth announcement.

[morningglory]

37. I never used to get involved in campaigns. When I pass a fool on a street

corner holding a sign, smiling and waving, they do not influence my vote. I think they are kind of stupid. When a political adv comes on tv I put my fingers in my ears and sing "lalalalalalala" while grabbing the remote. When I get a phone call from a political campaign, I can't slam the phone down fast enough if it is a repub. If it is a dem, I just say "no need to call me, I'm with you. Thanks for working..." I had never had a political sign in my yard until 2004. I had fun in 2004 with dems standing on a busy street, because they were so humorous and had witty t-shirts on. I put a sign in my yard for Kerry. I had sent money to Howard Dean, my first contribution. I volunteered down at the Kerry HQ. But Jesu Pete, I wish we could learn the candidate's stance and then just vote. Every vote counting, of course. All we really need is fairness doctrine again and we would be set. I would like to see public financing of campaigns.

[napi21]

38. The people who can afford to drop that kind of money on an election

simply have money to burn. I'm really not sureall oof them are getting a quid pro quo either. I think it's CRAZY to spend that kind of money on ANYTHING! Even if you guessers are close, we're talking about almost $100 million just amoung all the Dems. We are a almost YEAR from the first primaries folks! How much money is going to be floated between now and November 2008????

[madrchsod]

39. yup

what 50-60 million so far? by the time the primary rolls around well over 150 million for both parties?

[AshevilleGuy]

40. The nominee will win by attrition. Good-bye, smoke filled rooms.

This is the new reality: the candidate with the most money will outlast the ones who have to drop out, BEFORE the primaries!!! Hence the new grossly elongated election season!

[NCarolinawoman]

43. AIPAC, drug companies, insurance companies, media conglomerates....

.....weapons manufacturers, mining companies....How can we find our who gave what to whom?

I have read that a lot of "bundling" goes on with AIPAC and it's hard to trace to make the link-up. This may apply to the other contributors as well. :grr:

[Adelante]

56. I would love to see all bundlers listed

on our candidates' websites. I also want them to have to file on an ongoing basis to the FEC online so we can see where the money is coming from and what it is being used to do. We need transparency on a day to day basis, not have to wait for the media to tell us something somebody wants us to hear or for months and years for the FEC. Campaign finance transparency now! There is no reason pols can't do this, voluntarily, all of them.

[mnhtnbb]

44. Everything in this country is about money. Expecting elections to be different

is denying reality.

No, it doesn't have to be this way. Other countries handle elections in limited timeframes with free TV advertising. But this country is all about the money. The corporations that make money from the process aren't about to give it up.

[leftofthedial]

47. I find damned near everything about our political system these days

to be positively obscene

[w4rma]

49. Politics is a less violent form of war. War is obscene. (nt)

[many a good man]

50. 90% of campaign cash goes to buy TV ads

The money is simply going to enrich corporate media conglomerates while democracy suffers.

Easy fix: BAN all TV campaign advertising.

[NCarolinawoman]

63. No wonder all the talking news heads are grinning ear to ear, egging this on!

They are the enablers, the cheerleaders----and getting rich while our democracy goes down the tubes.
:argh:

[Clarkie1]

74. And usually the T.V. ads are all image and fluff with no substance. nt

[Adelante]

52. Positively obscene

It's turning me against politics and politicians.

[LWolf]

53. I have this weird disconnect:

Some money is necessary to get the word out. Yet,

I have never cast a vote because of a television ad, a mailer, or someone knocking on my door. Never.

First, I need to hear the name. Then I need to read about appearances, and attend some myself. Last, I need a computer to google their record, and for them to have a website that clearly outlines their platform.

That's all I need. Signs, bumper stickers, commercials, phone calls, letters, fliers....none of them make up my mind or change my mind. Propaganda, in the form of "talking points," slogans, etc., generally turns me off.

Most of that money is wasted, when it comes to my vote. If a candidate wants to reach me, he or she will spend the money traveling, meeting with people, answering questions, and keeping a website up-to-date. <shrug>

[enough already]

57. How many starving kids could be fed for $36 million? n/t

[flpoljunkie]

58. Hotline reports that about $20M of Hillary's money came from major donors.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/04/clinton_raises.html

How much of HRC's money came from major donors? (Answer: about $20M) Are there big donors left to tap? Did her internet fundraising bear fruit? How will this be spun internally? Does Bill Clinton think this number is good?

MARC AMBINDER

[RedEarth]

59. It clearly points out why we need publicly financed elections

Bill Moyers has been harping on this for years and years.

[Peggy Day]

61. Publicly Funded Elections with air time on "our" airwaves nt

[KoKo]

62. The Media loves it....like reporting on a Sports SuperStar's latest contract.

Kind of shows their priorities doesn't it?

And, yes it's obscene. We need Publicly Funded Elections so the ISSUES and not the STAR POWER ability to Raise Big Bucks is what's most important.

[SaveElmer]

64. No...26 Mil...50,000 contributers...$520 average contribution...

Does not seem excessive to me!

[DuaneBidoux]

65. It stinks--and we are as guilty as the pukes. By the same token, what can you do?

Unilaterally disarm?

Unfortunately however the reality is that when our candidates take this much money they are as bought off by the time the process is finished as the pukes. I wish we did like many of the Europeans: publically fund (on a very limited basis) each candidate's run for office, forbid outsite money, and severly limit the time of running to 10 or 12 weeks or some other reasonable period.

[Blue_In_AK]

67. I really hate it...

And more than the numbers, I'd like to see where all that money is coming from.

[windbreeze]

69. Yes, yes, and yes....disgusting...

nice to know our house is for sale to the highest bidder...hasn't got a thing to do with best "man" for the job any longer...sickening too...
wb

[IA_Seth]

70. It'll get worse with all of the front-loading, thanks DNC! n/t

[Clarkie1]

73. Yes. nt

[fooj]

75. It's COMPLETELY out of control!

The amount of money these candidates are raising is OBSCENE! I think there should be a "cap" (maybe fed funding) and I'm not thrilled about our Presidential candidates campaigning over 2 years before a General Election. It's a distraction...