Saturday, July 24, 2004
Money, Rich Men, and Presidential Campaigns
It probably doesn't come as shocking news to anyone that if you want to run a good campaign you need to have lots of money. That point was just driven home to me by a short article I read about the Kerry campaign.
Rewind to December 2003. Back then, Kerry wasn't highly regarded as the likely Democratic candidate for the presidency. If my memory serves me right, people were talking the most about Geppy, and Dean, but Kerry? Meh...
Kerry made a big splash in January 2004, when he came in first place in the Iowan caucuses. I think that's what really thrusted him into the limelight. But how did he go from not doing so well in the polls to all of a sudden coming in first place in most of the state caucuses and primaries?
Well, if you read the article, you'll learn that Kerry took out a $6.4 million loan to boost his campaign funding at a time when he wasn't doing so well. I'm not saying that he bought his way to where he his now, but at the same time $6.4 million goes a long way...
The thing that bothers me is that Kerry was the same Kerry then as he is now. Same ideas, same message, same vision. I wonder how well he would be doing now if he hadn't taken out that personal loan to fund his campaign. This leads to the irksome conclusion that maybe a person's financial assets matter just as much as his/her message and vision when running for public office. Obviously a well funded campaign can reach out to more people, but can we really expect people to come up with $6.4 million out of his/her own money to contribute to the campaign? And if some people can, and some can't, isn't it maybe an unfair advantage to those who can?
Rewind to December 2003. Back then, Kerry wasn't highly regarded as the likely Democratic candidate for the presidency. If my memory serves me right, people were talking the most about Geppy, and Dean, but Kerry? Meh...
Kerry made a big splash in January 2004, when he came in first place in the Iowan caucuses. I think that's what really thrusted him into the limelight. But how did he go from not doing so well in the polls to all of a sudden coming in first place in most of the state caucuses and primaries?
Well, if you read the article, you'll learn that Kerry took out a $6.4 million loan to boost his campaign funding at a time when he wasn't doing so well. I'm not saying that he bought his way to where he his now, but at the same time $6.4 million goes a long way...
The thing that bothers me is that Kerry was the same Kerry then as he is now. Same ideas, same message, same vision. I wonder how well he would be doing now if he hadn't taken out that personal loan to fund his campaign. This leads to the irksome conclusion that maybe a person's financial assets matter just as much as his/her message and vision when running for public office. Obviously a well funded campaign can reach out to more people, but can we really expect people to come up with $6.4 million out of his/her own money to contribute to the campaign? And if some people can, and some can't, isn't it maybe an unfair advantage to those who can?
