What is the effect of money on politics?
If people ever had questions about the influence of money on America’s election process, this year should provide some indepth observations — but not necessarily any solutions. From one billionaire candidate using his own financial resources in campaigning to the political contributions given to Arkansas Supreme Court Justices, we may get a glimpse of how money actually contributes to the inability of our leaders in Washington to look out for those who vote them into office.
When an extremely wealthy and very successful businessman and former politician (Michael Bloomberg, ex-mayor of New York City) suggests he would spend one billion dollars of his own money to run as an Independent candidate for the office of president of the United States, we may be in a “can you top this” environment. Donald Trump has used his billionaire finances and TV star status to move into the number one position as he seeks the Republican nomination. Even if you don’t agree with his platform, if he actually has one, it is hard not to be impressed with his private Trump jet and a helicopter to jump from one campaign site to another. His freedom from the fundraising requirement of the other candidates apparently gives him license to offend people, even television networks, without regard to the threat of withholding financial support. Whether or not one agrees with his view of Fox newscaster Megyn Kelly, the Fox network continues to give him free television interviews because he draws an audience to their network. It provides free airtime for him and adds viewers to the networks. He has even been honest about using his financial resources to influence politicians at various levels, including the presidency in the past as he uses his money in this campaign to demonstrate how it works. He seems bent upon reminding us of his financial empire as if it excused his frequently obnoxious comments. Regardless of how much money he has earned, or by what means, I find it a bit offensive to suggest he is so powerful, and so “loved” by his followers that he could shoot someone without losing any votes. Is that a sign of the wealth going to his head or has he convinced himself he has us mesmerized by his charm? I have to wonder if this is an indication of how he really views the voters who support him. I certainly don’t want to offend Trump’s supporters but his campaign rhetoric doesn’t sound very presidential. His success is actually a combination of an inept Republican Congress and a television industry willing to promote his antics with free publicity.
Jeb Bush, who has had a lot more success as a fund raiser than as a candidate has seen his millions of PAC dollars overwhelmed by the flamboyant Mr. Trump who has probably not made a dent in his lifestyle with all of his extravagance. When one can get free television coverage to the extent that The Donald has, why spend money for campaign ads? And, what will this Republican campaign ultimately cost individual candidates, their contributors and the national political party?
Now that we have the results of the elections on Super Tuesday as a reference, we can further speculate about both Democratic and Republican primaries outcome. The Republicans are down to four serious candidates and Bernie Sanders has revealed a weakness in Hillary Clinton’s march to the White House. Bernie has shown that millions of dollars can be raised in small donations from young people and fed-up older people to support a come-from-no-where candidate if his message resonates with the voters. His campaign style might be much less flamboyant than Trump’s with no private jet at his disposal, but his success so far can give us hope that substance might equal financial resources when it provides the motivation to have people work on a campaign for free and donate small sums of money.
Super Tuesday’s results also demonstrated the impact of money (PACs and Super PACs, as well as personal finances) in the contest to name a new Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court. The position of Chief Justice of Arkansas’ Supreme Court had become centered on campaign financing as much as on the qualifications of the two candidates. It had become one of those situations where less attention was focused on the character of the individuals than on the amount and source of campaign contributions. But apparently the loser doesn’t actually give up his or her current position to run. I’m not sure what that says about our political system.
We certainly have plenty to consider (and discuss over coffee) if you look at all the presidential combinations. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush have name recognition and the ability to raise money, but are hindered by their “family/ insider” baggage. Donald Trump has as much money as he chooses to spend, but seems to think he is doing us a favor by running. Bernie Sanders is totally dependent on his message and his motivational skills to raise money. However, he seems to be running to give us an opportunity to choose between the wealthy and socialism. Ted Cruz apparently has adequate money but has relied on evangelical Christians to compete with his “ground game.” Rubio and Kasich seem to be more middle ground and have their own more traditional style of fund-raising, recruiting and campaigning. There is a lot of money involved in this system of selecting our leaders. All we have to do is look at the Democrats and Republicans who started at the beginning and are now missing due to a lack of finances. No wonder it has so much impact on the outcome.
Our American “way of life and opportunity” is actually dependent on every individual’s willingness to work, become successful and share the financial rewards as they chose, so there is little likely-hood that we will ever control the effect of finances in politics. However, we can voice our concern if we take time to know our current and future candidates and judge them on their methods, sources and character.