Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
10.20.2008 6:05 pm

Guest Post: Is all the money for campaigning necessary?

Guest Blogger
  • Email this
  • Print this

Last week a large group of church members and I went together to a local assisted living home to sing hymns and happy birthday to our most senior member. Our friend was celebrating her 105th birthday.

The birthday girl was born exactly two months before the Wright brothers made their first airplane flight at Kitty Hawk on Dec. 17, 1903.

Her short term memory sometimes fails her now, but she has vivid memories of things from long ago. For instance, she shared with us that she remembered during the Great Depression riding to church in a wagon with a chicken in a burlap sack laid across her feet to keep them warm in the winter.

I asked my 105-year-old friend if she could remember the first time she voted for president. She could not, but when I asked if she was Republican or Democrat she readily offered, “Republican.”

I did the math and I suppose that if she voted in the first election she was eligible for after women won the right to vote, then the first Republican she must have supported was Calvin Coolidge. The political genius of President Coolidge, Walter Lippmann pointed out in 1926, was his talent for effectively doing nothing.

He commented that: “This active inactivity suits the mood and certain of the needs of the country admirably. It suits all the business interests which want to be let alone…. And it suits all those who have become convinced that government in this country has become dangerously complicated and top-heavy….”

My visit with our congregation’s most senior member got me thinking about all of the reasons that we are calling the current campaign a historic occasion: The first potential African-American president, the first Republican female vice presidential candidate, potentially the oldest person to be elected to a first term.

These things have all given this election cycle a great deal of historic import. There is one thing, though, which trumps them all in my mind; This weekend I read that this is now officially the most expensive election in history.

Based on current spending it is predicted that Obama’s general election advertising campaign will surpass the $188 million Bush spent on his in 2004 campaign early in the coming week. McCain has spent $91 million on advertising.

Just using those two numbers right now the total campaign spending would total $279 million. With that much money you could buy every his-and-hers gift in this year’s Neiman Marcus Christmas catalog 22 ½ times. Here is what the 2008 wish list has to offer:

  • A backyard golf course custom-designed by champ Jack Nicklaus — $1 million
  • $10 million Kentucky horse farm, complete with a stable of up to 15 thoroughbreds
  • Life-size Lego replicas of you and your beloved for $60,000 each
  • $250,000 authentic Guinness pub
  • $110,000 for a chance to shoot some hoops with the Harlem Globetrotters
  • $110,000 fighter motorcycle
  • 35-year collection of every 45 RPM record listed on the Billboard Top 100 Rock and Pop charts through the end of 1990 /$275,000
  • A Dallas Cowboys end zone in your backyard for $500,000
  • Limited-Edition 2009 BMW Individual 7 Series Sedan, $160,000

That is all luxurious. What about something practical? With all of the money spent thus far on this years campaigning, you could send 8,206 students to the University of Missouri for four years, pay for Medicare gap insurance for 46,500 senior citizens, or make a year’s worth of average mortgage payments for 22,595 households in Missouri.

I think this kind of extravagance is sinful given the depressed nature of our economy right now. So, here is the question: Is all of this advertising necessary? Is it the case that whoever can afford to spend the most is virtually assured of victory? Do we need for all of this to change or is it just OK?

By the way, my 105-year-old friend does not think that 72 is too old to be president. She has children older than that.

23 comments

Comments are closed.

Well you certainly need the bucks to compete in any election. This campaign has dragged on for nearly 18 months. Longer if you consider the time spent in exploring a candidacy. I just don’t know how you could crisscross the nation over that period of time without spending millions. How could you get the message out without that money? Sure you could spend the money elsewhere, but I think much more money is wasted on much less important things.

— jfmoyn
9:24 pm October 20th, 2008

Since the media now gives their favored cadidate(s) a long free ride, why waste money by campaigning? Just think of all the poor people that could have decent food if that money went to the needy, you also wouldn’t have to worry about re-distribution of wealth championed by the left.

— A. Patriot
6:57 am October 21st, 2008

Elections are funny. Campaigns employ a lot of people who can’t cut it in the private sector. I know, I worked with ‘em in 2000 and they managed to unsuccessfully run Steve Danner’s campaign trying to succeed his mother Pat in Congress. That’s pretty hard to do but they did it! So I guess it takes a lot of money to pay these welfare election workers.

— Scott_Simon
7:03 am October 21st, 2008

Well, it would be interesting next election to change the rules and limit the “campaigning” to: 3 or 4 presidential TV debates financed by an independent source; television, newspaper and internet news coverage; and limited, equal funding issued to each candidate by their respective parties. Nothing more.

— Ryan On The Euphonium
7:45 am October 21st, 2008

Pastor Scott,

Certainly $279 million dollars is a lot of money, even for two presidential campaigns that have run for well over 18 months. However, keep in mind, we will spend $333 million dollars in Iraq TODAY.

Without risk of exaggeration, I can say the stakes in this election are sky high. Which is why millions of people are donating to the candidate they feel can best lead us in this trying time. You feel too much is being spent on this election – I feel it’s a sign of how seriously we Americans are taking this election.

— Anonaman
7:46 am October 21st, 2008

What if Obama had not lied to the American people and kept his PROMISE, that he would join McCain in accepting federal limitaions on campain finances. How many votes could he buy if he just sent ACORN half of thoses millions he collected in September? How many radical activist community organizations could benefit from his largesse? Anyone who expects politicians to reform a system that benefits the party in power is at out of touch with reality or believes that a SOCIALIST, ACTIVIST LAWYER is the best person to lead this country. This attempt to shove an unqualified candidate down the collectve throats of the American people by dominating the press with 100’s of millions of dollars spent on questionable and mostly inaccurate advertising is an outrage, and may well lead to disaster. Just think of the new AXIS OF EVIL Pelosi, Reid and Obama and in the words of John Lennon “IMAGINE”

— B.A. Anarkisst
8:26 am October 21st, 2008

While all the campaign advertising gets on my nerves, you can’t argue the fact that it is helping businesses pay employees. It may not be the way you or I would spend that kind of money, but it is still being spent, and that is never bad for our economy.

Now, SHOULD they be able to spend that much? It’s called free speech according to the Supreme Court, so yes. The more support you have usually translates into more dollars raised for campaigning, so I would say the bigger spender is a reflection of the polls, not the other way around…

— Tim
9:03 am October 21st, 2008

For most of the Americans watching any amount of television, they have grossly overspent. I for one, hit another button when the same campaign commercials come on over and over. It is really ashame that it is becoming a race for money to become president. If they are using money that has been donated to their campaigns. They can do what they want with it. It’s the tax dollars that are spent on security that we are providing for the candidates. That cost is not even added into the figures that we see. From some of the numbers I have seen to protect the candidates, they wouldn’t have much to spend on any thing else if they were paying for that themselves. I personally think the candidates should be paying for their own protection paid for out of their campaign funds.

You know, we don’t ask for all of this. It gets shoved on us.

— first tom
9:07 am October 21st, 2008

— first tom
“You know, we don’t ask for all of this. It gets shoved on us.”
.
Well then
o Watch PBS especially The News Hour & CSPAN
o Listen to NPR
.
I don’t remember any political ads on either
Plus both present representatives from each side of issues being discussed, although representatives from the fringes are rarely represented.

— STL
10:55 am October 21st, 2008

STL, Watch whatever you want. Don’t tell me what to watch. The point is that the spending is excessive. Your right, you can just get in your closet if that’s what you want to do. Reverend Scott brings good points to the table. If you added all of the total dollars (taxpayers and private donations) you could take care of a lot of the problems in the country and it wouldn’t even change the outcome of the election. After all, most intelligent people vote for the party that they best agree with. All of this campaign stuff is pushed on us if you care to lead a somewhat normal life of viewing television and reading the newspaper. Regardless of what your opinion is, their are a lot of wasted dollars spent for no good reason. All of the working class will just go on life as usual. We take what we get handed. How many out there said they would quit their jobs if gas got to $3.00 a gallon? Well we were still working when it hit $4.00 a gallon and now we are happy to see it back around $3.00. That’s what the working man gets! Just what he’s handed. Deal with it.

— first tom
11:36 am October 21st, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All