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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”

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…

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
“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, 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.

I’m with first tom there. People have their minds made up once their
party’s candidate is selected. Does Obama need a 1/2 hour add, this late in the game, pushing back the start time of the World Series. Who’s mind does he think he’s going to change. If anything, he’s going to tick off some rabid Phillies or Tampa Bay fans into voting Republican out of spite.

Anonaman you made me think. Just maybe there is something to affirm about the money which this campaign has attracted if it is viewed as people taking it more seriously. My characteristic response whenever I have been approached about political contributions is that I support charity and not politics. I might need to evaluate that a bit. Still, my sentiment that this huge (historic) expenditure on campaigning is that there must be some limits set. I am not sure that I am comfortable with the reality that the winner is not necessarily the person with the best idea or agenda, but the best fund raiser.

These candidates will spend millions, some of that money their own, to get elected to a job that pays $400K/year. Talk about a waste of funds. No business in their right mind would do this and yet the voting public thinks nothing about it.

Based on this, the public thinks these people will be able to run an entire economy with the same logic? Me thinks not.

It’s funny ammoman threw Iraq expenses in there.

In 2007 alone, the Federal expenditures:

Social Security………586 billion
Medicare…………….394 billion
Medicaid…………….276 billion
Unemployment/Welfare….294 billion

The candidates aren’t spending hundreds of millions to get a job that pays 400 gs. They are running to land a job that will allow them to spend other people’s money in outrageous amounts and the speaking gig for an former president are quite lucrative.

Pastor Scott,

I’m pleased that, like your post, mine provoked thought. Your final sentence caused me to think quite a bit : “I am not sure that I am comfortable with the reality that the winner is not necessarily the person with the best idea or agenda, but the best fund raiser.” I wondered, is that a “reality”? Is it an absolute truth that the person who spends the most will be the winner?

Well, looking at past elections, you don’t have to look far to find people who win despite being outspent by their rivals. So do ads have any effect? Most of us believe that they have no effect on us personally, but have a strong effect on other people. I think the truth is somewhere in between; they have a small effect on most of us.

The truly committed probably won’t be swayed by any ad – in fact, they rarely will even watch an ad for the person they oppose. People who are more in the middle may actually give an ad a chance, and sometimes, those ads can raise a line of inquiry that leads to a changed mind. At the very least, a viewed ad is stored somewhere in a person’s mind, which makes that candidate more familiar.

I can agree with you that the campaigns are getting too expensive – it’s limiting who can and can’t make a legitimate run for the office. However, I’m not sure that limiting the dollars spent is a good answer – that approach has free speech implications, as well as difficulty in controlling spending by PACs. I think a better approach may be to limit the duration of campaigns. By making them shorter (say 12 months) we make them cheaper – and we have to put up with less ads for a shorter time (which can only be a good thing).

Amazing Loony,

Ammo-Man…. I like it.

Anyway, your post didn’t really provoke thought, it’s more of anger attack. Someone has to become the President, and millions of people are donating to make sure the winner shares their vision for the future. It’s called a Democracy – you only get a vote on the President every 4 years, this time lots of people want to make sure they are heard.

Let’s look at it another way. There are approximately 200 million citizens of voting age in the country. Let’s say they spend an even $300 million during the campaigns. That’s only about $1.50 each averaged out over time.

They’re spending a buck and half to reach me, and to try to convince me, to vote for them. I can be bought, but I’m not sure I’m really THAT cheap.

hs, nowhere near 200 million people will vote. The actual cost of this campaign will surpass the billion dollar mark. Your vote will be bought for more than a buck fifty.

Ok, Amazed, lets’ do the math…

Let’s say that a total of $1B is spent by all candidates and ‘unofficial’ supporters. Let’s further say that 100 Million votes are cast in the presidential general election in 2 weeks (50% voter turnout).

We then have: 1 X 10^9 dollars spent, and 1 X 10^8 votes cast. Dividing the number of votes by the dollars spent, the answer is 1 X 10^1 or $10 for each vote. Doing it in reverse, 100,000,000 votes X $10 per vote is $1,000,000,000. I’m still cheap, aren’t I?

In this society, money is speech and access, unfortunately. I’d give $20-$50 to support a political campaign (never have) except for the fact that once they get your contact info, they hound you to death forever. I understand that Obama contributors have given something like $86 apiece — these are not the fat cats bankrolling someone with the hope of favors in return.

The most impressive campaigns I’ve ever seen were those run by State Rep Harold Selby, who literally “ran for office” up and down Highway 30 in his Selby for State Rep T-shirt, and knocking on doors. He did not take donations; when he ran for an open state Senate seat against two well-financed opponents and a former TV sportscaster he finished second. In the latter campaign, supporters who wanted to help were directed to send donations $50 or less directly to the fellow who printed his yard signs. He’s one of the few living politicians I respect.

One way to minimize spending is to limit the campaign to six months prior to the election. Meaning, campaigning for President (including nominations) starts May 1, and ends on election day, but not limit spending per se which might mean that folks with $20 to spend could still contribute. Campaign spending limits by an individual contributor are a good thing; too bad Missouri did away with them. You can only spend so much money in a limited time, and people wouldn’t be going “enough already” by September. This way, folks could feel they are engaged in the election, but it wouldn’t be the 2-3 year ordeal it is.

Is all the money for campaigning necessary?

Apparently John McCain’s campaign has been squandering their money if you consider the current status
.
o But the Arizona senator’s campaign was smarting after a poll by the Pew Research Center showed Obama ahead by 14 points, and an investigation of Republican funds indicating more than 150,000 dollars had been spent on clothes for his running mate Sarah Palin.

o With the presidential vote looming on November 4, voters expressed a “widespread loss of confidence in McCain,” with 41 percent of Pew respondents saying McCain “showed poor judgment.” Only 29 percent said that of Obama.

o McCain also trails 32 to 53 on the critical question of who would best improve economic conditions.
.
.
Reminder
St Louis 100,000 KC 75,000 New Town 3,000
.
.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVl_OBFYZU40XzRGZUTHg6wBvr7Q

I was trying to make you feel better, hs, like you weren’t so cheap and easy.

It was my understanding that Obama had raised over $600,000,000, and McCaim was spending $84,000,000. The estimate is that the campaign could spend close to 3/4 of a billion dollars. I do not think that is necessary. I do think spending $600,000,000 and 2 years running for president speaks clearly to his accomplishments and committment. He is proud and declares this fact as one of his qualifying characteristics to be successful as president. Other candidates have won and proven to be good leaders by doing more and spending less. I do not think it is a sin. I would not do it myself.

As long as the amerikan sheeples remain sound bite driven, they will need TV monies to spread their propaganda. Of course they don’t need it. Like the pope doesn’t need all his money. Or even UCC ministers who leapfrog into more affluent flocks for the prestige and bigger bucks. Let’s face it, amerikans are suspicious of those who want to ride bare bomes like Reverend Larry Rice. Money R Us! Greed R Us Hypocrisy R Us
Did ya know they spent more on Palin’s stylist than they did on Johnny’s policy advisor? Yep! By several thousand dollars the old woman’s spackler won out in the payroll department. Johnny’s idiotic remarks no doubt have some of that at its roots.