Why Buying the Win Won’t Work

Interesting article in this morning’s Washington Post about self-funded candidates. Some take-aways:

  • Just eleven percent of self-funded candidates (those who personally paid for half or more of their total campaign budget) seeking state office were successful in the past decade.
  • Despite their lack of success, those self-financers collectively donated one billion dollars of their own money (twelve percent of all money raised by candidates during that period). Call me a tree-hugging hippie, but I can think of a lot problems a billion dollars could help tackle. Starting with one- nineteenth of California’s budget deficit.
  • Shocker: eMeg’s spending has now far surpassed the highest bidder of the last ten years (New York’s Tom Golisano spent $74 million of his own cash in 2002).

Most importantly, author Chris Cillizza argues that winning will not be the norm for rich, self-funding candidates this election season. Read why in the full article.

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Numbers, Whitman Fails

4 responses to “Why Buying the Win Won’t Work

  1. Jerry will prove that you can’t buy a seat in office when he wins against Whitman in November…

  2. Jeff

    I wonder if self-funded candidates don’t win because money doesn’t influence elections or that candidates that need to self-fund are poor politicians that were not filtered out of the race like those whom rely on institutional money. I suppose a third option would be that self-funded candidates do better in a primary format than a general election.

    While this is all neat stuff to debate, wouldn’t it just make more sense to remove private and corporate money from politics all together? I’m sure the resulting absence of tax breaks and loop holes to special interests would more than shore up the costs of funding public elections. Although this makes “sense”, it is most definitely socialist-pinko-commie-nazi-atheist-canadian-anit’mmericanism that would let the terrorists win.

  3. Maggie

    Who is winning this election? All those TV station who sold those ads.

  4. JohnL

    Society runs into moral and solidarity problems when money drives the major gears that ideally lead a community, even nation, towards progress. Furthermore, it sends a message to the masses that the rich are in charge and we all know a wealthy, private-jet flier has no idea what it means to count every penny or take the bus. The disconnect is alarming and proper representation is near impossible. The appropriate motivation to run a society is grounded in much more than being able to pay for advertisements, photo-doctors, campaign materials, and votes – a merited motivation comes from within and through experience. Money-bags-Meg frightens me. Her personality is lacking. Her unwillingness to appear publicly and address important issues is unforgiveable. An eighth-grader in an econ class can tell you that you can’t ignite the economy by cutting spending. California needs to run away from the materialism that put the country, and frankly the world, in dire straits. It has always served as a model state for progress, even if naysayers won’t admit it. Jerry Brown understands this. It would be an irreparable mistake to elect Meg. She’d scuff up the shine that makes California so appealing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s