I'm coming to the conclusion that, with perhaps a few exceptions, as a general principle you really can't buy an election. I say that because Meg Whitman has spent $120 million of her own money yet it looks like she isn't gonna win. Could she win if she spent $200 million or $300 million? I doubt it. People are gonna vote for who they decide to vote for. At some point you have put out as much advertising as you can. Putting out any more just isn't going to change the outcome.
This also leads me to think that the money flows toward whoever is perceived as the likely winner. In other words, the reason so many conservative candidates are likely to win is not because so much money is flowing toward them; the money is flowing in their direction because people think they're going to win. If it's true that as a general rule, the money is the result of success and not the cause, then I say repeal McCain-Feingold (looks like Feingold will be repealed). Why not take all the limits off political contributions? All you really need is exposure of the donor list. My concern all along has been that my rights are being trambled on when the government tells me that I can't give a candidate more than $1000.00. And all it does is impower PACs and big labor. Let's put the money back into politics. With good sunshine laws, the risk of money corruption politicians is greatly limited. And we have done rather well in recent years at discovering the corrupt ones and throwing them out on their ear...sometimes into prison.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Holy moly!!! Something we can agree on. Meg Whitman and most likely Linda McMahon are the perfect examples that it does take more than money to win an election. I am so tired of hearing the dems complain of outside money; Chamber of Commerce. Karl Rove stuff, etc. My feeling is if they don't like all this outside money and things then they, dems and republicans are the ones who have the power to correct it with full disclosure being the key. I think there is some kind of disclosure bill out there, but as usual it is stuck in the senate.
To me all this complaining is just set up for losses, just like all the baseless voter fraud charges by the republicans. Blame anyone but themselves. For the past month the dems have been setting up their money excuse and now the republicans are starting with the voter fraud stuff.
By the way...when I tool a political science class in college, the rule of thumb for PACS is to determine who has the best chance of winning and then donate the money to that person, but always hedge your bet and give something to the opponent.
Jeanne Cummings in Politico: "So far, the latest figures show that the Democratic Party machinery has outraised its Republican counterpart in this campaign cycle by almost $270 million.
"And even when outside spending on television advertising and direct mail is added to the mix, Republicans still haven’t closed the gap.
"The money race totals come to $856 million for the Democratic committees and their aligned outside groups, compared to $677 for their Republican adversaries, based on figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics."
I rest my case. You can no longer buy an election. There are too many sources of information. It may have worked in the past when it all depended on yard signs and TV adds, but not anymore. Repeal McCain-Feingold!
Dave, you're right.
Tom, how suitably cynical. And "baseless" fraud charges? You don't give your goon heroes enough credit. Election fraud has always been their modus operandi. MY guys are the ones who play by the rules.
Post a Comment