By Brian Bohl
Candidates are already campaigning for a presidential nomination even though the primary season does not commence until January. The country is entering into a new era, where there is no down time between elections.
Politicking is now a full-time job, as the front-page attention paid to early Democratic favorites like Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, demonstrate.
Running for president has always required more than ambition and talent. A legitimate candidacy required substantial funding in the past, and a serious campaign in the current political climate necessitates a war chest that would rival the GDP of most third-world countries.
While front-runners like Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani have already inspired hundreds of stories about their early campaign stops. A small story that appeared last week could significantly impact the way our national elections are funded in the future.
The New York Times reported March 2 that Obama and McCain have agreed to a fund-raising agreement if each man should win their respective party’s nomination. As part of the verbal understanding, each senator would be limited to just $85 million to be used toward the general election.
Unlike the 2000 and 2004 elections, where President Bush enjoyed a spending advantage over his Democratic challenger, this accord would put the same spending restrictions on both candidates. They would be forced to return any private donations they had raised for the period starting after the nomination convention and ending on Election Day.
Since the federal minimum wage is still under $6 per hour, many voting-eligible citizens will not be rushing to applaud Obama and McCain for agreeing to keep their spending in the eight-digit range. But the arrangement still impacts anyone who pays taxes, as that $85 million comes directly from the public.
In every election since the Watergate scandal, candidates have been eligible for restricted amounts of taxpayer money on the condition that they do not raise or spend any more than the amount they received. For instance, a candidate could not take $50 million in public funds and raise additional millions via private fundraisers.
Though they have the option of receiving taxpayer money, many politicians refuse the funding and instead attempted to raise more by means of private donations. This was a method Howard Dean utilized with great success to furnish a strong start during the 2004 Democratic primary process.
It wasn’t just Dean that turned the presidential election campaign into a haven for special interest groups and other wealthy individuals to furnish candidates with the funding needed to stay competitive in the race. Kerry and Bush alone engaged in a financial arms race that provided a prodigious volume of “soft money,” helping the 2004 race set a record after spending a combined $717.9 million, according to the Federal Election Commission.
That astronomical number is expected to be surpassed in the upcoming election, with The New York Times reporting that nearly $500 million could be raised before the primary season is even concluded.
During 2004, Bush spent $345,259,155 in his successful re-election bid. That’s not to say Kerry was begging for spare change on a street corner, as the Massachusetts senator spent $309,708,090. Much of that spending did go to the primary process, but a general election campaign consisting of $85 million for McCain and Obama would go a long way towardscurtailing the trend of increased spending every four years.
Any change in the overall spending for votes would be a welcome sign. Spending more than doubled from 2000 to 2004, and a similar increase would be looked at domestically and abroad as ridiculous expenditures considering our military and social security spending set new record highs every fiscal year.
As millions of Americans go without health insurance every year, our country keeps demonstrating we have the resources to spend lavishly on the quest for higher power.
In 2000, Al Gore spent close to $120 million. That was a high figure then, with Bush enjoying a nearly $65 million advantage, but those expenditures look modest in the face of 2004 figures.
A McCain-Obama showdown may not even occur unless both win their party’s nomination. But if they do, the agreement to spend exactly the same amount will give Americans a chance to see a presidential election where the conditions are equal for both sides. Ideas and policy will give a candidate an advantage instead of money and connections. That’s something that does not come equipped with a price tag.
Brian Bohl is a junior print journalism student. You may e-mail him at [email protected].