Hillary Clinton's campaign proudly announced today that her successes in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island have led to a windfall of cash, to the tune of $4 million in the two days since the polls closed. Not to be outdone, the Obama campaign announced that it had raised $55 million during February alone, breaking the record for a single month's take previously held by John Kerry.
...and they need it. These campaigns are burning through cash at a blistering pace in an attempt to knock each other out of the race, snatching up ads, paying pollsters and strategists and spamming whole states with direct mail. Mitt Romney burned through almost $100 million before giving up the ship. Obama and Clinton haven't even begun to fight in a general election and the end to the spending isn't in sight.
All told, the 2004 elections for congress and the presidency were estimated to have cost $3.9 billion.
I realize that there is an important role of campaign messages in communicating to the electorate. I'm also very familiar with the tired but valid argument that money is simply too vital and thus has too much influence in politics.
The question I haven't heard asked, however, is whether or not there are ethical implications to the amount of cash that is essentially being thrown away in the effort to garner votes. If a candidate or donor rationalizes the expenditure as a support for the implementation of better policies, how can they not realize the opportunity cost? How many uninsured Americans could we cover with the money we spend on campaigns? How much could be done to fight poverty with the piles of cash that are pouring into political campaigns? In an age where charities are struggling with fundraising, campaigns are breaking records.
With no end in sight to the growth of the costs of campaigns, at what point is this spending viewed as not only questionable but immoral and irresponsible?
Of course these costs pale in comparison to the cost of the war in Iraq. We've got priority issues everywhere you look in this country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
You're arguing for uncomparable things. Voluntary donations to any particular cause cannot and must not be compared to compulsory, or even voluntary funding for a vague undefined cause like "fighting poverty," or "insuring the uninsured."
You might also say all the money that the people of our country spends on gasoline could be better spent on such goals, but the reality is the same: private money is for private use, and private inclination directs it.
I realize that it is a matter of private funds. I'm speaking on an ethical level, not a practical one. It isn't as if I'd expect for these funds to be gracefully redirected -- but if a candidate claims to be passionate about solving expensive problems, that same candidate faces some serious questions when spending as much as he or she is to be elected.
Post a Comment