OPINION & EDITORIAL
Campaign coffers ring, distract race
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Brenton Martell:
- Campaign coffers ring, distract race (November 9, 2007)
- Closet character opens new doors (October 29, 2007)
- Shape up freshmen, you owe it to me (September 28, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Scandals distract politicians (October 9, 2006)
- Corcoran editorial proves ill-advised (February 15, 2005)
- Minority coverage inaccurate (February 3, 2006)
- Opinions are really hard to come up with. (February 3, 2003)
by Brenton Martell
Friday, November 9, 2007
Don't you hate it — kuh-ching! — when you’re trying to write a lede for your — kuh-ching! — opinion article, but all you can hear — kuh-ching! — is the sound of money being thrown around everywhere?
KUH-CHING!So do I.
Unfortunately, though, this type of constant interruption is exactly what's plaguing the current presidential race. Campaign contributions are absolutely out of control. Fundraising records are being shattered left and right — pun most definitely intended — from single-day records of $6 million and $4 million by Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, respectively, to $75 million-plus totals through the third quarter for both Ms. Clinton and Barack Obama. Almost assuredly, this race's campaign contributions will top more than 1 billion among all of the candidates.
If you've got the resources to participate, then step on up. If not, then get the hell out, because your chances of winning this race at a 10, 20, 50, or $100 million disadvantage are about as good as, well, they’re not as good as anything, really. It’s a shame that we are conducting our election campaign in such an exclusionary manner, especially considering most people would probably agree that the best ideas — not the greenest — should win out.
I don’t suppose I should be surprised, though. This certainly isn’t the first time that an election campaign has been about the money; in fact, they almost always are. Being the naive idealist that I am, though, I actually thought the Internet might promote some positive change in this election by downplaying the necessity to raise a yacht-full of cash. "Yeah, there's, like, YouTube and stuff, man. Anybody who has the right things to say will have an audience to listen." Obviously, things haven't really panned out this way, with one possible exception: Ron Paul.
Mr. Paul — whose viral marketing techniques have drawn a great deal of attention recently — represent what I thought we'd see more of in this campaign, even if he is beginning to use the Internet largely as a medium through which to draw money rather than to spread his message.
Admittedly, these Ron Paul references are getting run-down and tired pretty quickly; whether it's because the focus seems to be centrally located around the craze itself rather than the actual man, or because his name constantly reminds me of Ron Jeremy, I'm not sure.
Regardless, though, he has taken a step in the right direction, even if it isn’t going to have a strong enough effect on this race.
If there’s one positive aspect to the ever more ridiculous amounts of cash that are being contributed to campaigns, it’s the growing attention they draw will continue to point out that these massive dumps of money are difficult to track — and their legitimacy and legality will be disputed.
For example, Ms. Clinton’s campaign has recently run into problems with donations from restaurants in New York's Chinatown. The campaign has received several $1,000 donations from low-income restaurant workers, most likely the work of proxy donors. To be cautious, some of the donations were given back by the Clinton campaign; however, not all of them were. Undoubtedly, such donor techniques are used in favor of other candidates as well.
Indeed, it seems that crappy campaign finance will continue to be the reality for now, and with Clean Elections and "Patriot Dollar" ideas not gaining any noticeable momentum, we might be in for the long haul with the current system.
On the bright side, we can still keep up hope for a YouTube video featuring Ron Paul doing the Soulja Boy dance.
Brenton Martell (bmartell@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in English.
Carolyn Sturgeon (November 9, 2007 @ 1:13am):
Why not pick a subject like Social Security, Department of Education, War on Drugs, etc and expound? Look around you fella. This country and the entire world are in a state of havoc. The 08 election could be the most important one we've ever had! Take it seriously, if not for yourself than for the next generation. There is too much at stake for the entire human race for nonsense.
Please, write about things that will make a difference for the better. Get people to think. Why are you wasting your career? Make something of yourself that people will remember and be grateful for.
I happen to think that Ron Paul is best candidate for president. If you think you have a better candidate let's talk and compare.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 2:23am):
I think he is expounding on an important topic. The amount of money it takes to get elected distracts from the candidate's message. The media is so caught up in polls and money that the message gets lost. The traditional media and 24 hour news cycle has become lazy. Instead of investigating a candidate and his/her platform...they just look at money and polls and say "Here, America, is your predetermined winner. Look at the amount of money that they have raised."
The kid is an idealist. He only knows the internet and new media. He expects that this will mitigate the need for rampant fundraising to get the message out. It should be the message is the most important thing. I think Ron Paul's campaign is an excellent example of the future.
However, it takes money to buy old media. The fact of the matter is that you still need money to buy tv/radio ads...and these are better able to reach the general public that are still dependent on old media for information.
As long as people are watching the TV news...old media will be relevant. However, I think new media will eventually supplant it.
What I think the author doesn't understand is that Ron Paul's fundraising is directly related to his ability to get the message out. 37,000 individual donors in a single day...that really is incredible. He's fallen into the trap of laziness. A simple analysis would show that the message was first, the money was second.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 9:43am):
2:23,
I agree with you pretty much whole-heartedly. Except on one part, which is that I think the author acknowledges that the message was first ("even if he is BEGINNING to use the Internet largely as a medium through which to draw money rather than to spread his message), but is saying that the money is now becoming more relevant.
Also, I think rather than simply a critique of the system, a suggestion of a potential fi x could've also helped this article.
Hephaistos Klutometis (November 9, 2007 @ 11:09am):
"Mr. Paul represent what I thought we'd see more of in this campaign . . ."
We'll you were wrong; but since you're also green, and an English major, we'll overlook this one.
More troubling is your reflexively dismissive tone; I must conclude, therefore, that you're a thoughtless analyst, and read more Derrida than Chaucer.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
