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