Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Money and politics

$75 million for nomination shows what candidates actually have on their minds

It is common to refer to politicians – especially presidential aspirants – according to their political party or philosophical orientation. A column by Washington Post writer Chris Cillizza, (Herald, March 2), however, shows that whatever their thinking about the role, size and importance of government, what really matters is money.

Cillizza specifically looked at how much money it will likely take to win the Republican nomination for president. But within the vagaries of each year and campaign, the numbers are just as absurd for Democrats.

Cillizza looked at what Mitt Romney spent to become the GOP nominee in 2012 – $76.6 million – and figured that getting the 2016 nod would take at least as much. He says three Republicans clearly have the ability to raise that much – former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (the son and brother of former presidents), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. He gives slightly longer odds to two other candidates, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christy and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, but says they too could reach the magic $75 million mark.

If all five do take in that much – and not counting any of the other candidates seeking the GOP nomination – that would mean raising $375 million before the general election campaign even began. And if that seems unrealistic, Cillizza points out that Hillary Clinton raised more than $223 million in her unsuccessful run for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

Much of Cillizza’s analysis is of the horse-race variety, focusing on who is well-positioned to raise the requisite funds and could therefore win or lose. The deeper message, however, is right there in the numbers: How would anyone have time for anything else? For all their talk about ideas, convictions, how they would help the middle class or whatever the claim in their stump speeches, the fact of the matter is that serious presidential candidates have to be thinking of fundraising all the time. They simply cannot raise such astronomical sums easily or quickly.

Rather than sorting would-be candidates by party, ideology or along the supposed liberal-conservative divide, the process effectively sorts prospective office-holders by their ability to raise money and the degree to which they are willing to pursue it with single-minded focus. Being good at persuading wealthy people to donate to your cause is more important to success than the cause itself, just as organizing an army of small donors trumps any skill at running the real Army.

As Cillizza points out, the most successful fundraisers do not always win the nomination. But as he says, it is seen as a test of candidate’s viability. What that says about American democracy, however, is disturbing and, as Cillizza’s analysis suggests, that situation is only getting worse.



Reader Comments