U.S. elections: Dollars play a decisive role

 An article by Gary Younge in the Guaradian (UK) claims that the dollar plays a decisive role in U.S. politics. Younge starts out by noting that to outsiders many of the Republican candidates have made astonishing statements often supposedly resulting in their losing popularity in the race. The German magazine Der Spiegel Mirror perhaps summed up the view of some foreign observers noting the the campaign seemed to be a parody of the stereotypes that many foreigners have about U.S. politics: . "Those who follow this race daily may have long since lost perspective on how absurd it is,". "Each candidate loves Israel. They all love Ronald Reagan. Each loves his wife, a born first lady, for a number of reasons." Younge should at the least note that it is Republican politics in the primaries for choosing a presidential candidate he is talking about and this does not involve the Democrats. However no doubt part of the description would apply to them as well! But the real decisive element in the campaign is not the debates but cold hard cash.'
    While the role of cash is not new it is made even more decisive by the Supreme Court ruling that allows unlimited spending by PACs. Younge notes that in 2008 168.8 million was spent on the election. Just since voting started less than a month ago Super Pacs alone have spent about 40 million. The trend has been up and up. Election spending doubled between 2004 and 2008.
     Money of course is not the only determinant of success. Santorum won Iowa with expenditure of 74 cents a voter whereas Perry spent a humongous 358 dollars a vote and came in fourth. But as Younge points out in many other situations huge spending on ads seems to be key to campaign results.
   Younge claims the influence of money in elections is corrupting the political culture. The problem is not personal Younge claims but systemic. As Younge puts it:"" it means a group of wealthy people in business will decide which wealthy people in Congress they would like to tell poor people what they can't have because times are hard"  Actually what Younge is pointing out is hardly new. What may be happening is that money is coming to play a larger and larger role. This is hardly a phenomenon confined to the U.S. either. It is no doubt common in all democracies. It is just expensive to run a campaign so that only those who have the support of those with funds can be expected to get very far. There are exceptions but that is the rule. For more see the Guardian article.

Costs of the upcoming US presidential campaign

These costs obviously provide a screening process that assures the rich that their interests will be recognised. Only if you are rich or have their support could you possibly run for president.


CBC Newsworld's Washington correspondent takes a peek behind the scenes on life in the American capital.

The billion dollar presidency
Friday, February 2, 2007 | 04:16 PM ET
By Henry Champ
Pop quiz: What do you get when you have 17 (so far) presidential candidates, no incumbent running and television ad salespeople on your speed dial?

The first $1 billion-plus presidential campaign.

To break that figure down, experts believe the two candidates who surviving their parties' primaries will each need a further $400 million to fight the next presidential election in 2008.

Each will already have spent an estimated $100 million to get through the primary trail with most of the money going on Iowa and New Hampshire, the two early contests that separate the leaders from the also-rans.

There's your billion right there, and that's not even counting the — take your best guess — couple of hundred million dollars the assembled also-rans will need to stay in the race as long as they can.

The spending has already started. Staff is being hired.

Writers and researchers to show how smart you are, and how dumb and/or crooked your opponent is. Travel specialists, make-up artists, television producers with their own crews and assistants. Drivers. Offices in the early primary states. A main office in your home state. Pollsters, phone banks, the list goes on.

At this writing, each candidate needs to raise slightly more than $6 million dollars a week, or if you are God-fearing and celebrate the Sabbath, then a million dollars a day from now until November 2008.