Recently the Clinton campaign revealed that they injected thier campaign with $5 million of personal cash because they were falling behind Obama's total funding for January. The International Herald Tribune posted this article in response to the $5 million:
"Hillary Rodham Clinton lent her campaign $5 million late last month as Barack Obama raised more than she did and outspent her in the Democratic presidential race.
"The loan illustrates Senator Clinton's commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation," a Clinton
spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said Wednesday.
Obama, riding a wave of fund-raising both from large donors and small Internet contributors, collected $32 million in January. Clinton's campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, said the Clinton campaign had raised $13.5 million for the month. The $5 million was in addition to that amount, Wolfson said.
On Wednesday, the Clinton campaign set a goal of raising $3 million over the next three days through the Internet.
"We have had one of our best fund-raising efforts ever on the Web today, and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy," Wolfson said.
In a teleconference with reporters, the Clinton campaign's chief strategist, Mark Penn, said, "We will have funds to compete." But he added, "We're likely to be outspent again."
Hillary and Bill Clinton's financial disclosures, which reveal only broad ranges of assets, place their wealth between $10 million to $50 million.
The Clinton camp is counting on March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas and an April 22 primary in Pennsylvania. All three are expensive states in which to campaign."
I want to sincerely question a few concerns I have with campaign spending. First, I feel like a piece of merchandise to be bought with flashy signs and catchy commercials. These democrats keep talking about "change" and ushering in a new wave of politics for America. However, they are playing the same old campaign game. If you want me to believe that you are concerned about poverty and issues related to the homeless its going to be a hard sell as you spend potentially $100 million dollars of superficialities on signs and advertisements.
I really feel that Americans who are voting responsibly are watching the debates and engaging in conversations over candidates. We don't want to be bought, we are choosing who will be the best leader for our country, not the individual with the best slogan or billboard. It disgusts me to think of what could be done with this campaign money. I would almost rather take all the money from every candidate, use it responsibly to fight the social ills of our society and put up with Bush for another 4 years!
I know these are completely unrealistic demands, but if each candidate made a promise to conservatively campaign and instead of vying for the greatest contributions, work to spend the least amount on a successful campaign, it would be a much greater deserved win. There is far to much emphasis on the amount of funds raised and not enough on educating the entire American population.
There are many people in the US who will be unable to make an educated decision because of either choice, or lack of resources to do so. Therefore, our candidates are buying these people with their surface level slogans and unethical mudslinging. Its degrading to the dignity of each person to place a price on their vote. We need to create a greater option for the poor that reaches out to educate these individuals. It is an injustice to treat these people as though their vote is up for auction. This is a corrupt system that is grounded in greed. It places a question mark at the root of many candidates platforms.
The article also stated that the Clintons have a net-worth between $10-50 million dollars! I just cringe at this figure. When candidates are so passionately speaking about the poor and the unequal distribution of wealth, I'm wondering how quickly they would be willing to give up their money so someone else can pay their rent. We have all these candidates who want to work for the poor and bring these individuals justice and the rights they deserve. You cannot know the needs of the poor unless you have lived with them, in simple solidarity. Until you understand being poor for what it truly is, you cannot fully represent these needs. It doesn't matter how many soup kitchens you visit, or charities you start, if you live with $10 million as a minimum potential for all your assets, you cannot adequately represent the needs of those living in poverty.
This issue is so frustrating and hypocritical to what America should stand for. Our leaders need to represent the American people. They should not be swimming in money and buying votes. I don't want to be reading news about campaign funds and hearing that basically who ever has the most funds will win the nomination. That reduces my humanity to a dollar sign, and thats absolutely morally unacceptable. We are a Christian country, founded on Christian ideals and I fail to see any representation of Christ in any of this.
1 comment:
You bring up a very interesting point here regarding money and campaigning. As you suggest, it is no surprise money plays a large role in campaigning, yet how much should it actually play. Looking back in history, before television was a common appliance and when the media played less of a role in politics, the primaries were not what they are today.
I do agree that it is very difficult to look at our candidates and not be disgusted by how much money they spend in their campaigning. You raise a point in regard to how this election is supposed to stand out, make a statement, offer positive change. I agree with that stance as well. You ask how a candidate can make this change they are claiming when they are turning a blind eye toward needy causes. This is always a difficult debate.
Although substantial amounts of monies are pumped into this campaign, including considerable personal finances, such as in Clinton's case and in Romney's case even more so (even though he has suspended his campaign), we must not forget that although money is flying around, candidates have been generous. For instance, last year, Obama gave 6% of his income to charitable causes; this totaled around $60,000+. The Obama's took in around 1M last year. In Clinton's case, although understandably criticized for recently putting 5M of her personal finances toward the campaign, when the Clinton’s established their foundation they gave $800,000 to start up the organization. The following year the Clinton’s gave another $100,000 of their own funds to the organization. Although you may argue of course they donated money to their organization, this charity act does not stand alone. In more recent years, since the Clinton’s have paid off legal bills due to Bill’s impeachment, they have increased their charitable donations. Therefore, I think it is unfair to look at candidates such as Clinton and assume they are turning a blind eye toward charitable causes.
Additionally, the Clinton’s have donated a substantial amount of time to issues involving AIDS, Hunger, Climate, and disaster relief. Toni Morrison is quoted in her 1998 essay saying, “Notwithstanding his white skin, Clinton was: "Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected (president) in our children's lifetime." This statement is powerful on many levels. First, it comes from a creditable, black writer. She recognizes how the Clinton’s have stepped up to the plate. So although Clinton is guilty of using her own funds to keep up in the race, she is still a charitable activist who appears will follow through with her promises.
I don’t want to turn this into an ordeal revolving around Clinton, but I used her as a model in which we could platform most of these candidates around. The ideal which you acknowledge as idealistic in regard to cutting down on campaign spending and using it toward a note worth cause is great. I really like this idea. I think it is possible if approached form a different direction. I would be advantageous to make private funding illegal, thus putting the government in charge of funding campaigns. If primaries are cut down, and campaigning is only allowed 6 months prior to the election think of how much money could be saved! Also, if the States focus more on the main convention they can decrease their costs and make the campaign more equal in regard to staying in the race due to monetary conditions. This would practically eliminate “swimming in money and buying votes,” and essentially make campaigning more morally acceptable. The future shall be interesting…
Post a Comment