Too much money in politics? I think yes. There is way too much money being spent on politics. In the 2008 election Obama set the fundraising bar at "sky high" and for the 2010 elections it is going to be the biggest fundraising competition ever. Because Barack Obama didn't have to pay attention to the spending limits, the Republican are now wanting to follow that path and raise as much much as they can because they are trying to gain control over the Senate and continue to grow in their strenght in the House. The article says that $3 billion has already been spent inthe 2010 federal midterm elections and that the "final potentioal tab" will be $4 billion. $3-4 billion dollars is going towards who is going to win the 2012 elections. $3-4 billion is going to politics when that grand sum of money could be going towards other things. I know that it is illegal to give or receive large chunks of money for political aspects, but to gain that much money, people are giving a dollar here a dollar there. Think about it. People are willing to spend some little money on politics. Yet, people can't seem to find a couple dollars here, a dollar there to go towards foundations, lets say for the poor. Yet they will give to PAC's so they can feel apart of a political campgain but they won't spend what little momey they can on the people of this country who really are in need of help. Makes me think...how selfish some people in this country really are.
8 comments:
I feel like the rise of money in politics is something that cannot be stopped. The game of politics is just that..a game. Political parties/ candidates will stop at nothing to earn votes, even if it means having to buy them. However, the recent defeat of Meg Whitman, who spent over $140 million of her own money toward the campaign, in the California Governor's race gives us hope that the votes of people in this country cannot be bought.
-Lewis Yang
The amount of money being spent on politics is fairly ridiculous, but I doubt that it will be curbed anytime soon. As long as there are people willing to give money, politicians and campaign organizers will continue to further encourage contributions and large campaign spending tactics. It should be noted that although campaign contributions are hardly as noble as charitable contributions, they are boosting one sector of the economy. Just think of all of the media and campaign workers that these huge sums of money must go towards (although I'm sure plenty gets lost in the black hole of some media executive's wallet...). It was fairly amusing that Whitman's "throw large sums of money at it strategy” didn't work though.
Unfortunately, the biggest reason that Whitman's campaign didn't work was that she used so much of her own money so openly. It created the notion that she personally was trying to buy the office, and it was a key component of her downfall. What irks me most about the situation though is that the democratic side had just as much money to throw around and no one ever made as much as a peep about the funding for Brown. This situation is not unique to the California gubernatorial race however, and in most high profile races, similar sums of money are earned/spent in order to win offices. In the case of most candidates though, the money comes from lobbying groups and other behind-the-scenes contributors, who harbor special outside interests of their own for their own good. This is not questioned in the least. But when someone wants to spend their own money rather than having to deal with the nuisances of raising such ridiculous sums, the public goes nuts and accuses them of not being genuine in their promise to put the needs of the voters first. It seems hypocritical, to say the least and it is a wonder how more people have not come to this conclusion.
Ryan emphasizes a very good point that most of this money comes from lobbying groups and other such contributors. Some portion of that money was indeed donated by individuals, and I see nothing wrong with that. It is not selfish to financially support a political campaign. It is similar to investing; you are giving money to a candidate who you feel will most likely address the issues at hand. One of those issues could be poverty, like you mentioned. Individual contributions are far more democratic than the millions thrown around by lobbyists.
Is it selfish to give your money to cause in which you believe, regardless of the amount? Some people genuinely give money to campaigns that the truly feel are beneficial to mankind. I have no doubt that Whitman had convinced herself that she truly was the better candidate. Is she evil for spending her own money to get herself elected, regardless of the fact that it backfired on her, in a fun case of irony? In my opinion, no. I don't think it is selfish to have opinions and fight for them to be heard/enacted into action.
The amount of money being spent on politics is outrageous. In the case of Obama and Clinton campaign, where neither decided to take the money from the public fund, they were allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money, as opposed to McCain, who was restricted by the spending limits. Personally, I don't have an issue with the outrageous spending if they did not take the public funds. Obama and Clinton were using money that they raised and there's no problem with that as long as the money was not raised illegally. Just the spending of money is fine. And, like Jeff said, they are even boosting part of the economy. The problem I have is when money is used to essentially "buy" votes or when money is used for astroturfing to sway members of congress.
It's unfortunate that more money isn't used to help foundations and organizations who work for a cause, but the harsh and perhaps more cynical truth is that people would rather donate money to support a congressman or policy that will affect and benefit them than donate money to help someone they don't know with a problem.
One of the most unique things about the Obama campaign and the amount of money that it has raised is that the vast sum of it came from small contributions over the internet. And as the above posts have mentioned that some of the individual donators do it out of some desire for social change and bettering our government, I agree with them. While the amount of money that has entered the game of campaigning has increased, I don't necessarily see it as a terrible thing. It is bad that certain PACs pay more $ to campaign for selfish things. But if the majority of money is coming from ordinary citizens in small amounts, its democratic and actually a better way for candidates to recieve money. Also, we are in one of the most tense decades of our history, so in some ways I think that citizens feel like paying more attention. One way we pay attention to things or show our interest is by spending money.
Post a Comment