LETTER: The Money Election

Broadside Letter to the Editor

Sen. Barack Obama’s, D–Ill., campaign raised a record $150 million in September, and has spent about $185 million in advertising so far, according to The New York Times. Jim Rutenberg reports that the Obama campaign is “set to break the advertising record established by President George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign.” Obama is breaking records with the amount of money he is raising and spending in his bid for the White House. The previous record was held by Bush’s campaign, which went on to win the election. What can we draw from this? Whoever has the most money to burn in order to further his/her goals is likely to succeed.

The amount of money the Obama campaign spent on advertisements coupled with the negativity of stories that cover Sen. John McCain’s, R–Ariz., campaign show how elections can be won. Of course, that is if Obama is victorious in November, which he is likely to be if national polls are accurate—showing Obama is up by seven points. Howard Kurtz reports that a recent study found 57 percent of “print and broadcast stories about [McCain] have been decidedly negative.” On top of this, only 14 percent of stories about the Republican Party have been positive. So why is it that McCain is continually coming across to the American public as negative?

Perhaps that has something to do with the nearly record-breaking amount Obama’s campaign has spent on ads attacking McCain. In Virginia, there are reports of Obama having three campaign offices compared to McCain’s one. In the past few weeks, Obama’s ads criticizing McCain have dominated local TV channels. The Obama campaign has clearly made and spent more money than the McCain campaign, and has something to show for the investment—Obama’s popularity in the polls.

The media coverage on Obama was said to be more balanced, with 36 percent of stories being positive and 29 percent negative according to Kurtz’s report. We can all agree that the overall goals of the two presidential candidates are the same—to better this country. Generally speaking, there isn’t a lot of difference on the issues between the candidates. Both want to end the war in Iraq “responsibly” now. Both agreed upon the recent bailout bill. Both want to invest in renewable energy sources. Both want changes to the tax system and health care. But with all of the negative coverage on McCain, one has to wonder whether the $185 million in ads purchased by Obama’s campaign had any effect on the media’s zeal to portray him in a balanced way, and his opponent negatively. Obama has even bought a full 30 minute media time slot at 6 p.m. on Oct. 29. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship; Obama gets more play and the media get more pay.

With this in mind, surely there must be a way that we can keep the electoral coverage equal. There certainly is: the public finance system. It forces political candidates to use public money, equally dispersed to all parties. This way, there is no unfair advantage by one candidate over another, and the wealthy have less influence over who gets elected. Common Cause, an organization in favor of these “fair elections,” asserts that “the undue influence of big money in politics undermines the public’s interest.” Their concerns are clear—when large corporations or rich, powerful figures who have agendas, finance political campaigns, they will probably expect some return on their investments. In other words, they are buying a candidate who will bow to their interests.

Obama initially agreed to limit his campaign financing to public money, but later reneged on that agreement. To a presidential candidate questionnaire in 2007, he responded, “I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.” But earlier this year, the Obama campaign backed out of the public finance system when it became apparent that he could make more money through private donations.
McCain agreed to use public money to finance his campaign, and has stood by his promise. Even today, McCain honors his commitment. Many past presidents have made promises before being elected that they did not follow through on. Judging by Obama’s actions at this stage in the race, I can’t help but have doubts about whether he, if elected, will deliver on his promises.

Lucas Nottingham
Senior, English