So what are Republicans supposed to do? NOT raise large sums of money?
What about media stars? Should THEY get large sums of money?
(Just asking...)
Rich donors might actually agree with the politics. Sometimes the simple answer is the right one.
Things get more vague when special interest donors are involved, ones that just hope to “bribe” the upcoming government to go their way.
A large part of a candidates war chest goes to pay those hired gun politicos. IMO, they are leeches of the worst kind. They haven’t any loyalty. They win even if the candidate loses. You also have to wonder how attached they are to the candidates message. Perhaps they are being paid by another candidate for the purposes of sabotage.
How are Republican candidates going to beat Obama if they don’t raise large amounts of cash? He’s planning on raising a billion or so to run his campaign. TV ads cost money and lots of it. We’d better have a nominee who can raise large amounts of cash.
Even the most inspired grassroots campaign for POTUS will take barrels of money, far more than what we saw as relatively paltry federal funding that McCain chose to take in ‘08 ($80M as I recall)
The campaign costs aren’t just the consultants or the tv ads. Putting on public events, travel, lit, etc. cost lots of money. You have to pay people to organize the events, for the venue, equipment, insurance, security (even after the candidate has SS). Campaigns have to rent, furnish, equip and staff offices in every state, some states have several offices.
And, let us not forget, Republicans have to offset the ‘in-kind’ donations of all the major media. That is very costly.
Given the controversy with the recent SCOTUS decision allowing corporations to donate as do the unions, and Obama’s attack in his SOTU on that ruling (remember, Alito’s ‘not true?’), I am not sure this battle is anything more than an unnecessary distraction.