The money Meg Whitman has spent on her campaign could pay for:
- 1,652 full time Aragon teachers (at the 2003/04 average salary)
- 29,750 $4,000 FASFA grants
- 732,026 months of food stamps for 4 person families in California
- 5,950,000 backpacks with school supplies for underprivileged children
So far, Meg Whitman has spent $3.22 on every person in California, or $5.17 on every registered voter. It seems clear to me that she is literally paying for the votes by simply spending more money than her opponent. History shows us that valid debate is what lives on in history, and results in actual forward progress for the nation. Do deep pockets and a willingness to spend money accomplish the same thing? Is it fair that Meg Whitman can outspend her competitor to such a degree?
7 comments:
The disparity between the spending power of Whitman and Brown is unfair, but this is the reality of political campaigning. Winning an election in this day and age requires advertising, spin, and publicity (and not so much good ideas), and this costs a lot of money. Meg Whitman obviously realizes this. It's a sad truth, but I can't blame Whitman for that; blame the game, not the player.
Jerry Brown is certainly at a financial disadvantage. If he truly believes he is better prepared for the role of governor, he needs to get his ideas across to all 30 million Californians. And according to the polls, Brown is not doing a bad job at all despite his disadvantages.
Discussing a topic at a table is simply not enough anymore. We need a governor who is willing to, and able to, spend a great deal of money to solve our real, fiscal problems.
Like Jesvin said, Political races are not fair, they are based so much upon how much a politician can raise and how many people are predisposed towards a certain candidate already.
Sure, Meg Whitman's expenses so far could have been used for much more noble purposes, but as governor, perhaps she can do more. Also, do we really want an altruistic governor?
Finally, is Meg Whitman really paying for votes? I think Ryan has some interesting points on this which we were discussing earlier.
To add to Daniel's fabulous posts, I would like to add that a candidate's spending extravagant amounts of money on a political campaign does not force or coerce voters in any way to vote for that particular candidate. The choice always rests ultimately with the voters themselves, who must make their final decision on what they believe will be in their best interests.
A recent CNN poll shows that Whitman is ahead by only two percentage points, demonstrating the public is not necessarily being strongly swayed by her large spending.
And moreover, Brown is not without his large base of funding and supporters either. He, in fact, is being funded by a mass of teacher unions, labor unions, independent funders, and law enforcement. This simply adds to Jesvin's point that running a campaign in this day and age requires a large base of support & funding. Let's face it; politics is unfair. If you can't raise the money, you shouldn't be running. If you can't raise the support, you won't win.
In essence, I do think it is fair that Whitman be allowed to spend her own money on her own campaign because it is her money that she is spending, however, it is a little ostentatious of her to do so in such a way that she is outspending Brown by millions of dollars. But then again, if she has the resources, why doesn't she use them? She has accumulated a massive amount of money over her lifetime and is it fair that she hold back? Although he probably is not as well off as Whitman, Jerry Brown, I hope at least, is utilizing every ounce of his resources as well and not holding back in lieu of what Whitman is doing. After all, I would not want the future Governor of California to hold back anything positive they could potentially bring to the table.
I feel as if this blog is becoming tag-team.
@ Bobby
That comment could not be any more truer . . .
@ Bobby and Joseph
And you just started to realize that? Haha. :)
Post a Comment