Like a credit card bill from hell, first quarter fundraising reports showed an excessive amount of dollars collected for the 2008 presidential candidates. Senator Hillary Clinton leads the soon-to-be spending spree, having raised $36 million through the first three months of her campaign, quadrupling the record amount collected by Al Gore in 1999. Even John Edwards – the third place finisher in the Democratic primary – has eclipsed Gore’s numbers, raising a cool $13 million for his campaign; America still awaits for Barack Obama’s and Republican figures to be disclosed.
It has become safe to assume the 2008 presidential election will be costlier than any election in the history of our world. Spending will, undoubtedly, eclipse the $1 billion mark in this decisive race. Seems like an excessive amount of zeroes for a job that pays $400,000 per year, but it becomes even more extreme when one realizes $1 billion is a higher dollar amount than the entire GDP of 28 nations.
But people like Jonah Goldberg would have you think that this price tag is by no means intolerable. According to his March 28th article in the Washington Post, “More money means more communication, more debate, more education. In other words, more democracy.”
More money does not mean more communication. More money means more bought votes, more you scratch my back while I throw dollars at yours. Money is to political campaigns what PowerBait is to the first day of fishing – you just have to continuously apply until you get every fish to bite, because they are all hungry. Plus more money usually means more painful, slanderous and repetitive advertisements; not what the Framers would consider a two-way communicative conduit.
Neither does more money mean more debate; it eliminates it. Today we hardly elect the candidate with the best ideas. We elect the candidate who gets our attention, and that usually comes at a price and with many purse strings. According to OpenSecrets.org, we elect the candidate with the biggest checkbook 97% of the time. This causes many deserving candidates to drop out of the race early simply because they cannot keep up with the fundraising. More money means less candidates and less debate.
And to believe that more money equals more education? Considering that 5% of voters elected Bill Clinton in 1992 because he played the saxophone or that 6.25% of voters placed George Bush in office in 2000 because he was a guy they could “sit down and have a beer with,” if we really wanted to educate the voters, we could do it in a much more effective and efficient manner than making signs and barraging them with tasteless, purchased propaganda.
Instead, political races should have a level political playing field. This nation was founded upon equal opportunity, and the current price tag of elections virtually eliminates any hopes of average citizens with great ideas to play in the same arena as the millionaires and billionaires that run the system and the corporations that sponsor them. Watch Bullworth or Man of the Year if you want to laugh at that biting but honest audacity.
Money has not enhanced our democracy, it has squandered it. The only way to solve this is to slowly take it back from campaign donors and pork-barrel spending projects and for every voter to look at their politician like they would their teenager with our national credit card. Call it "American Excess," because that is what money has done to our political system. If we neglect to watch it, recover it, and reinvent it, the great democratic system that was fine-tuned in this country and replicated around the world will not be every where we want it to be.
