Let me just say up front, I’ve got no problem if you support a candidate financially. As a matter of fact I know many people who contribute to campaigns and these people are quite nice. And they believe, for good reason, that their contributions play a viable roll in the political process.
However, as for me and my house . . . well that’s another story. I write this because I’ve been so very close on 3 different occasions to being lured in to give small amounts to a candidate that I like. And each time I’ve had to remind myself of why I had committed not to give, even when it felt like it was something I should do.
To me (and I could be wrong) the problem with America is that there is a growing disconnect between citizens and our government. I’m beginning to learn that this disconnect is not necessarily all the government’s (or big business) fault. That in many ways, we – the citizen, are complicit in what goes on by our blind indifference and lack of radical action. But the problem of this growing disconnect is that many citizens are growing more and more disillusioned with the government and political process.
Long story short, everyday people feel like their best interests as citizens (globally and nationally) are being ignored. Power has been centralized in the hands of the “few”. And these “few” are being influenced by people other than your average, everyday citizen.
For example, getting elected these days is no longer about whose ideas are the most progressive (Kucinich & Paul respectively for each party). Getting elected these days is more like king of the hill with the hill being made up of money. Take a look at the charts below (courtesy of OpenSecrets.org) and you can see very quickly just how the front runners because of their cash flow.
No longer are ideas, ingenuity, or your average citizen what gets you elected. But it’s how much money you have and how fast you can raise it. If history is always told from the perspective of the side that wins, what does that say about our election process? These exorbitant dollar figures that are raised and consequently spent effectively box out the average man from running for a government position. Only those with deep pockets to begin with are even allowed to get the ball rolling in that direction. The day when a man like me could step up and represent his community, be the voice for his context . . . that day is over. Bigger is better. And bigger has won.
Now to be fair, some candidates, Obama and Paul for example, have raised a good majority of their support from small donations from small donors while others have chosen to take large chunks of change from lobbyists and big donors. So at least these campaigns are more representative of the average citizen.
But it’s the process that’s broken. Even if the money is raised from average citizens, what does it say about our average citizens when their candidate has raised over $80 million dollars and already spent $44 million not even a month into the official race?
$80 million dollars for Obama. $90 million for Clinton. $62 million for Romney. $47 million for Giuliani.
You’re looking at a half a billion dollars being sucked out of the average citizen so that we can change the letterhead in the White House? To replace one man with another (or woman)? The process is broken.
Even if I were to give a small donation of $25 to my guy . . . and even if that donation was more representative of the average citizen instead of the big corporation or large donor . . . is this process even sustainable?
In a world where people die from something as simple as clean water to drink, is a half a billion dollars 1 month into an election sustainable?
I can’t imagine this model is replicated in other countries. Only in America would something balloon to this size and most people not bat an eye.
As much as I love Kucinich, I don’t want to help him buy his way into the White House. And as much as I love Barack, I don’t want to help him buy his way into the White House.
You should be able to become a Senator or a President without having to have the biggest pile of money.
I’m tired of being complicit. I might vote for Barack. But he’s not getting a dime of mine. Is that a contradiction?
Perhaps I’m being too critical so I’d love your feedback. Have you donated? Why or why not? What kind of hang-ups with giving money to a campaign do you have? What strengths do you see in giving money?
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
11 Comments
Too critical? Maybe. But if you are, I’m in the same boat. When I found out after the last election how much money was spent on the various campaigns, I was outraged. And then to hear the frontrunners of this election say they hope to raise close to half a million each! Absurd. Absolutely absurd. As you said, there are people around the world dying from the need of food or clean drinking water and we are spending billions of dollars collectively for a presidential race that will likely get us more of the same with a new face at which to be mad. If we could reform spending in the political process, things like healthcare could become easier to deal with. OK, I’ll stop ranting (or at least do it on my own blog).
-Alan
Correction. It should read “they hope to raise close to half a *billion* dollars each.” Sorry for the typo.
“I can’t imagine this model is replicated in other countries. Only in America would something balloon to this size and most people not bat an eye.”
Yup. From the European side of the Atlantic, we look at America open-mouthed and say “is this supposed to be democracy?”.
But in the UK, we’re not really doing much better. Funding for political parties has been falling as membership has fallen, I guess because a lot of people don’t really identify with what the parties stand for (if anything). So the parties are being bankrolled by fewer and fewer rich individuals. But meanwhile, they seem to feel the need to emulate your politicians, in the rate they spend on campaigns.
So they keep proposing that the best thing for democracy would be for the taxpayer to fund the political parties. And that way, I’d say, lies REAL madness.
i don’t contribute.
i can barely pay rent.
It’s a no-brainer for me.
There are PLENTY of better things/people to give money to.
i don’t contribute either. i hope for the day when there is a serious cap placed on campaign fund raising. the amount of money wasted on mudslinging and popularity bolstering is sickening. and quite ironic, given some of the candidates “message.”
I don’t contribute to campaigns either, I feel it’s too much of a waste of my money. Seriously, send money to these guys and what good comes of it? They really care only for the lobbyists that can provide them with the most money not some joe schmoe like me who can only send a few hundred or so.
nice visual with the graph.
I completely agree with you.
peace.
Much as those who do not vote cannot complain about their government, so too, if your system is built that way, can those who do not contribute to their favoured candidate (and I would expect it would be the candidate who promises to overhaul this financing debacle) not complain when that candidate drops out of the race because they don’t have enough money.
Sorry if that didn’t make as much sense as I would like it too, it’s early over here and I’m tired.
Andrew, at least our political system allows one to stand for MP for only, if I remember correctly, £2000. And you get that back if you get enough votes. Unfortunately the Americans elect a supreme leader which means a nationwide election for an individual, something impossible to win without extremely deep pockets.
I’ve never contributed to any campaign, though we’ve come close this time around. Just because we like Huckabee and he’s done so well with so little money thus far. Even still, I’m reluctant to do it for various reasons, including many of the reasons you cited.
I think your point about the process is more important than the actual money, though. The presidential races are more like a celebrity contest than a search for a great leader. Taking a look at how the electoral college originally worked – where each state legislature chose the electors – and going back to that – would completely eliminate this constant presidential election cycle we’ve developed and the amount waste it generates. No matter who wins in November, talk will begin about who the frontrunners are for 2012. I say let’s scrap the whole thing and let the state legislatures choose the presidents again.
And on a related note, I’ll throw out my support of enlarging the house of representatives at the same time. Each representative initially represented about 60,000 people. Last time I heard it was like 10 times that. The size of the house hasn’t changed since WWI. That’d make it significantly easier for newcomers to enter into politics, requiring a lot less money to garner support in your district.
“Boy”, just to respond: yes, the UK system has much going for it. Then again, I’m effectively disenfranchised: in East Oxford, the constituency where I live, Andrew Smith is going to keep being elected unless he starts eating babies or something. My vote is unlikely to make an iota of difference.
2 Trackbacks
[...] Why You shouldn’t give money to a campaign [...]
[...] . . . I also haven’t written much here about what I think of the process and the election, outside of why I won’t give money to a campaign. I thought it might be therapeutic for me to get a few things off my chest about the whole [...]