I despise politics… especially during campaign time. In a report by the BBC about Fred Thompson’s bid into the White House race, they discuss his lack of funds that would impede his bid to the White House:
Nor has Mr Thompson been bowling Republicans over with his compelling persona in the few speeches he has given, Mr Zogby says, and his lack of cash is a concern.
“You need to have $25-30m right now and then at least $40-50m more before 5 February,” he added.
If each candidate has raised this much campaign support… let’s take the low end and multiply it times the top 8 candidates (of which there are about 200 actual announced candidates for the Presidential Election)…
That’s $300m and on the high end it is $400m… What could that do for the environment, the homeless, or the hungry? How in the hell do we not have campaign finance reform? How can we as a citizen of this nation not be appalled at this blatant act of ignorance?
I guess we do what they do, we choose to ignore it.
Just found a listing of what the top Candidates have raised thus far… click here for a full report.
Barack Obama (D) – $32.8m
Hillary Clinton (D)- $27.1m
Rudolph Giuliani (R) – $17.5m
Mitt Romney (R) – $14m
John McCain (R) – $11.2m
John Edwards (D) – $9m
Source: reports filed to the US Federal Election Commission
No Comments on "politik…"
add that money with the money (and lives!) going down the tube in this bogus war we are a part of and, well, the possibilities….
I agree with the concept of campaign finance reform, but from the perspective of making the amount of money raised more reflective of actual popular support. I know $30m sounds like a lot of money, but when you look at it in the broader context of the potential it carries – a chance to have a great deal of influence over the entire federal budget – $30m seems a small price to pay. At least to me…
maury… were you seriously up at 4 or 5 am… and not going climbing..?
on your point, yes $30m is a small price to pay for control of the entire federal budget, but is that what we are doing here? Giving the Presidency to the highest bidder, the best fundraiser? No doubt, that the contributions carries with it a huge amount of diplomacy and political agenda. My question would be, how indebted are the candidates when one actually is voted in office? You cannot tell me there isn’t a bit of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” going on here. George W’s actions and hirings in the first quarter of his presidency clearly showed a “paying back” of sorts.
So, yes $30m is a small price to pay for potential of power that is at stake.
It wasn’t actually that time, your blog did some crazy timestamps…
First of all, I don’t want some jackass who lacks popular support getting equal funding through a federally funded system just because he wants to run. Of course the candidates are indebted and scratch backs, that’s politics. However, some people are doing things in ways that are more admirable than others – Obama’s position of not accepting money from PACs or lobbyists who press their cases in Washington, for example.