Campaign Fundraising - How Else Could This Money Be Spent? ~ Struck In Traffic - Politics, Economics, Entertainment & Society

Sunday, March 9, 2008

Campaign Fundraising - How Else Could This Money Be Spent?



The cost of getting elected to the office of President of the United States could cost $1 Billion by the time the election is over later this year, according to OpenSecrets.org. As I previously reported, this election will break more record than one with campaign fundraising and the potential of the first African American or woman as Commander in Chief.

To date, the Democrats have far outpaced Republican counterparts in both raising and spending money, as was reported here and here. I'm sure the reason is that the former has had a much more competitive race throughout the primaries between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while the latter has already pegged John McCain as its nominee. Without a doubt, both parties' nominees will crank up the fundraising engine and go on a nationwide spending spree to hit the record $1 Billion mark during the general election.

As I have said before, I strongly believe in aggressive Campaign Finance Reform measures; however, what STRUCK me today, while watching the show The Big Give created by Oprah Winfrey, is that $1 Billion could do a tremendous amount of good for people who are genuinely in need right now, including those who cannot afford to be filling political coffers with retirement savings or social security checks.

Now, I'm not one who regularly watches television, let alone Oprah-type shows, but I was impressed with the charity, ingenuity, generosity, compassion and joy revealed by simply lending an unexpected helping hand. If people have extra money to spend, give it to someone who really needs it rather than a politician - at least a portion of it.

I am passionate about politics, but I am also compassionate about the needs of others. I think people should be involved in the political process, but there are more ways to do that than giving money.

Think about it - how else $1 Billion could be spent for good?

Spending on kids' education or worker retraining programs would have a high return on investment. Millions of people could get affordable healthcare. Tens of thousands of foreclosures could be avoided. Thousands of food banks, senior centers, community organizations and kids charities could be fully funded for an entire year. The list goes on and on.

You can probably think of fifty people in your life right now, possibly even yourself, who could use a small boost to get through a tough time. The country is going into recession, and the stimulus package will probably not be enough to turn things around. So, given the circumstances, why would we accept that an election for ONE OFFICE (granted, the highest office) would cost so much money? Something is wrong with the system.

If you haven't contributed to the process yet, think hard about how you want to get involved before writing that check. You should get informed, volunteer your time and participate in discussions around issues of importance to you and your family; however, you will make a bigger difference in the world by helping your neighbor in need, rather than helping a politician fill a campaign war chest.

No matter what you decide about campaign contributions, please make sure that you VOTE!

Related Posts:

Campaign Spending is Out of Control
Fundrace 2008 Stats Reveals Major Support for Democrats

Sphere: Related Content

4 comments:

Adam Pieniazek said...

The system is messed up, but that's what happens when the majority of Americans buy into the two party system. Now we have two massive parties who fight against each other for control leaving the smaller parties to fall into the shadows.

What we need is for a 3rd party to win and thus tell the Demopublicans that the people still maintain the power in this country.

Jeremy Neal said...

Thanks for the comment Adam. I think that we could probably agree that Campaign Finance Reform is key to changing things in the political process. It would level the playing field, so to speak, to allow for a viable third party candidate to make a run for president.

Adam Pieniazek said...

I agree to a certain extent Jeremy. I'm not sure I want my tax dollars going to fund potential politicians (some of their salaries are bad enough, especially when they spend half their time in office campaigning). Also, what's the criteria for determining who gets funding and who doesn't?

I'm all for a system where you don't have to be rich to run for president (or any other office) but think the solution is in the use of technology to decrease the cost of communication and rule changes to ensure candidates aren't left out because they're not popular or rich enough.

In either case, that $1 billion could spent a whole lot better.

Jeremy Neal said...

Adam,

Good points again. Take a look at this post I made with some alterations to what has been proposed by others in the past http://struckintraffic.blogspot.com/2008/02/campaign-spending-is-out-of-control.html.

I don't think campaign contributions should come from federal tax dollars. Voluntary contributions would be part of the equation, and it may have be administered by the government.

A big key is setting defined limits in spending in each region. Fundraising would not be eliminated completely, but it would be capped. I do believe that one way voters weed out non-viable candidates is by not giving them any money. I would feel better about contributing a small amount to a campaign, if I knew there were caps on spending and one candidate could not "buy" the election.

Then, I think reforming the primary system to group the nation into regions that rotate each election cycle would be another step in the right direction to encourage more candidates to remain in the race.