I just got a postcard of a smiling Obama family, robosigned by Michelle, saying:. "Thank you for your support." I haven't given her, or any other candidate, my support. But her card reminded me that in this rocky recession during which so many of us are un- or under-employed, there is one growth industry in this country. It's called politics.
This month, the primaries over, both presidential candidates are out hustling, but not for votes. They just want your money. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both panhandling in the hope of raising $1 billion, which not only demeans them but demeans us, too. After the election the big donors -- not the majority of us -- will call in their favors. The oil industry will frack gas fields, health insurers will gut Obamacare, and LGBTs will want favorable rulings from the Justice and Labor departments. If recent trends are any indication, this election will cost even more than the $2.4 billion in 2008, which was more than 2004, and more than... you get the idea.
What would $2.4 billion buy if it was pumped into the economy and not wasted on what promises to be mostly negative advertising?
With $2.4 billion you could buy a baseball team like the Los Angeles Dodgers and have something left over for hot dogs and beer. You could fund an entire city school district such as Philadelphia's, where students are starving for new books and computers. Or you could, if Facebook (Nasdaq: FB) critics' figures add up, buy 13 million expensive hoodies, which would clothe most of the children in Africa.
What really happens is that $2.4 billion generates a lot of noise, which no one really wants to hear, but we all do. It seeps through to our subconscious. Results have shown that enough negative ads put a stink on a candidate, and get his or her opponent elected. Romney's victory in the recent primaries was largely due to his ability to "out-Super PAC" his rivals, sometimes with a 20-to-1 advantage in advertising.
You can blame the US Supreme Court for creating this coterie of "hired guns" with its Citizens United decision. But let's be honest. Who benefits the most from all this slush money and negative ads? The media. Newscasters and talking heads love to whine about how money corrupts the political process. But who pays their salaries? By November, virtually every ad on the morning news will have a grainy and ugly black-and-white photo of a candidate along with a smarmy voiceover accusing him or her of being someone's stooge.
Wouldn't it be nice to emulate the Brits, whose campaigns start and end in a certain time and whose candidates are limited in spending? Never gonna happen. Every effort made to keep money from corrupting politics and abusing the airwaves has failed.
So here's a suggestion. Let's go back to the politics of the 1850s. Back then everyone gathered at a camp meeting where each party opened a keg of whiskey for the crowd. Then candidates like Abe Lincoln wrestled to see who was the strongest. That would be a lot of fun and a real reality show ratings grabber.
But meantime, you keep your postcard, Michelle, and I'll keep my money.
I agree with your basic premise that campaign spending buys influence not votes. However, there is a small exception to that, namely that all the billions being raised are going to advertising in a small number of swing states.
Living in New York as I do, I will never see the ads; never get a door-to-door canvass, never really have my vote matter. My money would matter, but it would go to funding scorched earth efforts in maybe five states. No thanks!
During the last presidential election I made a $10 contribution to the Obama campaign simply because I was curious about the use of social media and wanted to get the text alerts, etc. Well, four years later I am still trying to purge my name from the mailing lists. Once a donor, you are always viewed as a sucker.
I agree. Once on a mailing list - anybody's mailing list - you never escape. Often your name and address are "regifted" to everyone else in the same business. Charities are frequent offenders.
The other thing that's annoying is that political groups are exempt from a lot of consumer laws, like robocalls and provisions of the do not call lists.,
Blame the electoral college for that one. Politicians talk about getting rid of this anachronism, but it never happens, because it allows them to get the most bang for their economic buck.
When I was reading the original post, I decided to research the concept of a "vote of no-confidence" which allows the UK to change its government more frequently than every four years.
I'm mixed on the results and would love other's opinions. The good news is that a disfunctional government gets put out of its misery sooner. The bad news is that the legislature, in that case Parliament, holds all the power.
The idea of our Congress controlling the executive branch is pretty scary. Not sure what the lesser of the evils is in this case.
Perhaps someone can explain the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision, that makes the Super PACs all powerful and makes money even more powerful than votes. Influential groups like the NRA pushed for this.
I agree specially at a time like this. If they really did care and wanted to be true leaders to the American people they should use the money to help with the unemployed etc. That's not going to happen but I think people are going to notice how the money is spent during this election more than in the previous elections because of the economic problems.
I bet you are right. I also bet most of that revenue will remain concentrated in the hands of the top execs--and not find its way to the hands of the workers.
At the end of the income tax process, I am in the farthest thing possible from a charitable mood. NOT checking that little box feels like thumbing my nose at the IRS. Yes, I know it doesn't effect my tax bill, but I never check that box.
The ad agencies will benefit a lot and like you said there could be the political beneficiary as well. So much money spent for such a cause really makes you rethink this whole thing. And it's just going to annoy most of the intended target market. Do you think the negative ads have an impact on the voters?
Does anyone else find it upsetting or odd that Michelle Obama is doing the fundraising? What is the message she is sending...that Barack is that unpopular? Or that she wants it more than he does?
Doesn't sit well with me either way, and yes, I did vote for him in 2008. But not because of her...
Here's a weird couple of coincidences I've noticed on the news in the last couple weeks. Could be coincidence, could be a guerrila marketing campaign. Anyway, the first instance occurred when President Obama was giving a speaking engagement and a kid had him sign an excuse note for missing school because he went to see Obama instead. Next instance occurred nearly a week later when this time the First Lady was giving a speech and, yes, she signed a note for a child to give to her teacher for missing school. Both made the news.
@Broadway, good catch on the corny news stories about both Obamas signing notes to miss school. NO coincidence there!
The irony to me is that I simply cannot imagine the tables being turned and the Obama girls missing school for any such purpose. Michelle, the tiger mother, would NEVER permit that!
This story dates me, but it's worth it: Years ago, when I was in high school in Southern California, Richard Nixon did a campaign event in my home town. I was active in student government at the time and was offered the chance to miss school to help work at the rally.
As intoxicatingly novel as bailing on a day of classes was, I just COULD NOT see my way clear to go work for Tricky Dick. Looking back on history, I'm not sure to this day if I'm happy or sad about my choice!
Ha, ha, ha, @Drivewaygirl! You're absolutely right! Am I the only one picturing some aide walking behind Obama carrying a whole BOX of permission slips and handing them out?
I saw the notes on the news reports, and they were handwritten by the president and the first lady, so in the very least these aren't rubber stamp affairs. I am now leaning to the fact that perhaps the president did it impromptu the first time, realized the great reaction it got and realized that anytime a child attended a rally and mentioned missing school for it, they would scribble one of these notes. In other words, not a conspiracy but cheap and easy free publicity.
Thanks for the clarification, @Broadway. I'm sure you're right that the notes aren't robo-created! It still seems lame to me. What kind of person takes his/her kid out of school to go to a political rally? In 2008 maybe, but not now.
Actually, I think that's what 's at the root of this. I think Obama just wants to show that he's still "got it" with the crowd-drawing charisma. But remember that everyone who gets close to the First Family needs to be vetted by the Secret Service (there's a joke there, but I'm above making it!)
None of this audience participation stuff is EVER spontaneous. Those kids and their families were pre-chosen for their 15 seconds of fame, so cute PR but at the end of the day, so what?
I don't know who goes to political rallies, period, with kids or otherwise. To me, they seem like the lamest, choreographed form of entertainment possible. I would rather watch street performers, even the kind that paint themselves with metallic paint and don't move for hours on end. Impromptu poll here ... anybody ever attend a political rally for one of the two major parties?
@Broadway...ha, ha, tell us how you REALLY feel about political rallies! Seriously, I think the poll is a great idea, so I'm weighing in.
Never been to a political rally; never plan to attend one. I did go to a fundraising dinner for a California state senate candidate once (the husband of a college friend of mine) and that was a whole new circle of hell we haven't even discussed!
Then there's the "town hall meeting," another unique torture device. A friend of mine was wounded in the Gabrielle Giffords shooting last year, so I'm swearing off those, too.
The blogs and comments posted on Investor Uprising do not reflect the views of Investor Uprising, PRNewswire, or its sponsors. Investor Uprising, PRNewswire, and its sponsors do not assume responsibility for any comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Native Americans on reservations live by different, and more liberal rules than the rest of us. You can't sue a Native American business -- but they can sue you.
To save this item to your list of favorite Investor Uprising content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This