Comments on: White House Bid Could Cost Winner $400 Million in 2008

By: Jonk

Jonk — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:17:31 +0000

LOL! I should have said with "tongue firmly in cheek" about "regular folk".

But that aside, just because something has always been a certain way does not mean that it is correct.

By: The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive »

The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:25:25 +0000

[...] In a recent post James Joyner of Outside the Beltway notes the projected cost of the next presidential election to the winner as topping $400 million in the next cycle, does a little back of the envelope calculation, and determines that the cost of the election to the winner will be roughly $1.34 per American (obviously since there are fewer voters than Americans the cost per voter is higher). He asks: Given the stakes, the real question seems clear: Why are we doing our politics on the cheap? [...]

By: Herb

Herb — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:47:08 +0000

Darn, I was planning on entering the race, but the 400 Million is 399.99999999 $ over my budget.

Oh Well!

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:03:44 +0000

Jonk,

When was the last "regular folk" to get elected president, campaign finance or no? Presidents and other senior officials have almost always come from the upper class, going back to George Washington.

By: djneylon

djneylon — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:17:34 +0000

Gee, $1.34 per American for electing a president...what would it cost if the goverment (our taxes) paid for it...and, along the same line...why should my money go to support the canidacy of someone I can't stand...just because someone thinks "it's a good idea"

By: Jonk

Jonk — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:17:31 +0000

$400 mil is to keep out the riffraff...don't want the "regular" folk having a shot at the halls of power.

In all seriousness, being President under our current system requires that you know the big players in some industries...regular folk don't have that kind of access and experience.

By: bryan

bryan — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:30:11 +0000

Actually, public financingâ��assuming it came with a ban on private spending or some sort of spending capâ��would be to the advantage of incumbents.

*some* incumbents, James. Imagine if the pork-laden incumbents were not able to rely on their large war chests of pork-influencing campaign funds against lesser challengers. If nothing else, some type of equal time measure would allow people without huge personal fortunes to have a leg to stand on in opposition.

An â��equalâ�� playing field in that regard almost assures that the incumbent, who starts with huge name ID and the ability to tout billions in federal pork heâ��s brough home, wins.

Which would make it no different than the current system.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:18:53 +0000

bryan: Actually, public financing--assuming it came with a ban on private spending or some sort of spending cap--would be to the advantage of incumbents. An "equal" playing field in that regard almost assures that the incumbent, who starts with huge name ID and the ability to tout billions in federal pork he's brough home, wins.

By: bryan

bryan — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:12:34 +0000

I donâ��t believe thatâ��s the question at all, James. The reason that itâ��s as cheap as it is is that television networks donâ��t want to charge more for time for fear of regulation. Otherwise theyâ��d charge five, ten times what theyâ��re charging now. This is complete B.S. television networks charge what the market will bear. If they charge too much, they will send advertisers to other - more effective - advertising channels. And for that matter, TV time is *not* that expensive in terms of cost. Indeed, if you knew how much it actually cost to broadcast a 30-second commercial, I think you'd think the exact opposite. And it should be noted that most of this advertising is going to be "local" or at least "regional" in flavor. Very little of the advertising actually goes to national ads. Personally, I think they should go back to some form of free advertising for candidates. Of course, that would cut into some of the incumbent advantage - so it's never going to happen.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:24:55 +0000

I don't believe that's the question at all, James. The reason that it's as cheap as it is is that television networks don't want to charge more for time for fear of regulation. Otherwise they'd charge five, ten times what they're charging now.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:48:04 +0000

Rick: But the overwhelming majority of the money, especially on the Republican side, is from small contributions of well under $500. It's just a function of a lot of people giving money in order to buy advertising, which is expensive.

By: Rick DeMent

Rick DeMent — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:20:58 +0000

Given the stakes, the real question seems clear: Why are we doing our politics on the cheap?

With a point of view like this it is easy to understand why politics in the US (and most everywhere else) is a cesspool of corruption.

I would say, given the stakes, why are politics so completely money driven?

...and the answer is because those with money want it that way.

By: Below The Beltway

Below The Beltway — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:56:59 +0000

Its Never Too Early...

The race among Republicans to pick their next Presidential candidate, for an election no taking place for another year and a half, begins in earnest this weekend in Memphis.

MEMPHIS, March 10 -- Almost 1,000 days before the elections of 2008, ne ......