I agree that the candidate who raises the most cash is probably not necessarily the type of candidate we might, all other things being equal, actually prefer. Nevertheless, I have to disagree fundamentally. Candidates who raise the most money today are actually less beholden to special interests (compared to in the past) simply because they cannot raise much from any one source. In fact, it is actually quite impressive that GWB was able to raise so much from so many people (the GOP has been able to do the same in the past). He garnered over a million contributors (that may be overstating, but I know it was in the many hundreds of thousands), and the average donation was less than $100 if I am not mistaken. He was able to eschew the matching funds from the government and thus had no limits on media buys and advertising at any point in the campaign. Republican candidates really need that badly since they have no media friends. That is as strong a case for grassroots support as you can make. Romney and Guiliani are doing really well at this so far. It remains to be seen if Thompson can do the same. Regardless, while the current system blunts to a certain extent the influence of special interests, it leaves the candidate with the herculean task of being in constant money-raising mode - flying around to different events all the time at $1000 a plate dinners. And the effect on the mode and tenor of the campaign is pronounced because candidates have to be extremely careful how they say things to one group or another because they not only are faced with the prospect of losing a few votes, they are faced with the threat of missing out on a whole lot of contributions.
You can make the argument that in the past candidates would be more beholden to special interests because there was no limit on contributions from any one contributor. In an effort to decrease big money influence, Congress over the years has passed restrictions on campaign finance. I think they should not have done that but merely pushed for openness: make candidates declare who they got their money from and how much. Then the public can decide for themselves whether they trust the candidate and the benefactor supporting him.
And if you believe that Fred is different, and that he isn’t beholden to special interests, I respectfully disagree.
Every candidate is. If you were a candidate, you would be too. What we want to know is, who is it and how much influence, and can we live with it.
The only place we have a chance to change things is, IMO, in the primaries.
The primaries must be changed structurally first. There are too many, too tightly compressed, that if you don't have a ton of cash you will not be relevant because you won't be able to get your message out simultaneously in NH, SC, FL, AZ, NY, etc. All these states have moved their primaries up to be more relevant as a state in determining the nominee, and it has raised the stakes on raising alot of money for the campaign.
BTW, if Hunter was the nominee, I believe the GOP and the Republican voters would get behind him with the money he’d need.
Oh, I think if he were the nominee, he could count on alot of support, no doubt. But if you remember, Bob Dole was the nominee but spent all his cash getting the nomination locked up. He had it locked up by late February or late March, I can't remember, but was basically unable to buy any advertising. He had to wait until mid-summer, I think, before federal matching funds were released to get back on the air. In the meantime, the DNC and Bill Clinton absolutley ripped him a new one with ad after ad after ad (along with getting very favorable coverage for themselves from the MSM) and he was toast by June. He actually was leading Clinton in some polls in December, January, if I remember correctly, but was 20-25% down by June. So, you can opine about how great it would be if a candidate did not need to show fundraising prowess, but that is one of my absolute primary benchmarks a candidate needs to show me before I will support him. Not the only one, mind you, but a very significant one.
LOL! Come on! The rules are ignored and 'stretched' constantly by both sides. Less beholden?? You're joking, right??
...GWB was able to raise so much from so many people...
It appeared that way, because the Dems had so many max donations, but both sides (as usual) were 'skirting' the rules.
Every candidate is. If you were a candidate, you would be too.
You've just conceded the argument.
The primaries must be changed structurally first.
Not if EVERYONE VOTES FOR HUNTER!!
That will change it, now won't it! ;^)
Bob Dole was the nominee but spent all his cash getting the nomination locked up. He had it locked up by late February or late March, I can't remember, but was basically unable to buy any advertising.
Which only confirms my statement that it's not about the best, it's about the money.
So, you can opine about how great it would be if a candidate did not need to show fundraising prowess, but that is one of my absolute primary benchmarks a candidate needs to show me before I will support him. Not the only one, mind you, but a very significant one.
Yes, we agree. We're all f#@ked by the system, and the system is almost impossible to change.
Some dream for what may be.
Others settle for .... whatever.