SmallGovTimes.com

By: John Cox | Published on 04/09/07    

The announcement of the record setting campaign finance reports by the major party candidates this week brings into stark relief a fundamental question regarding this presidential cycle: is the country and the process well served by the race for the biggest bankroll?

Clearly, the media is playing up in countless news stories the relative success or lack thereof as it relates to the fundraising abilities of the presidential candidates. It is said that the ability to raise money is related to their ability to generate followers who will look to them for leadership. Given the amounts involved so early in the process, one must ask if that is really true.

What we are witnessing here is a virtuous cycle as it relates to the media. The mainstream media sources eagerly tout the most visible candidates, who then appear to the funders to be among the chosen few who have a chance. The funders open their wallets and the prodigious funds raised end up predominantly in the coffers of those same media outlets after a few crumbs are taken off the top by the usual suspects – big name political consultants, operatives and the like. It is, of course, no coincidence that the media most often takes its clue as to who are the front runners from those same big name consultants, variously dubbed the "DC gang" or the "gang of 500".

If we start with the premise that the goal of the whole process is to have an informed electorate elect a leader who will most ably reflect the needs and wishes of the public, the essential question to ask is whether this system is really achieving its goal. To this observer, it is plainly not.

What we see first of all is the work of the media to overtly influence the selection process. A candidate has no chance of getting their message out without money and candidates cannot raise serious money without name recognition accorded by the media. Is it any wonder that the current list of serious fundraisers includes career politicians who have populated the talk shows for years or celebrities who have achieved notoriety partly as a result of being tied to major events? Of course, we also have the success of Barack Obama, who has parlayed a novel candidacy (as the so-called first serious African American presidential contender) with substantial media frenzy into a sizable bankroll.

Given the dearth of acceptable candidates to the conservative base of the Republican Party, there is even talk of recruiting (what else?) a movie and television actor, Fred Thompson, to play a real life role as President.

What is the answer? I believe the answer lies in a truly free market election. Clearly, government limits on political contributions haven't worked. Candidates do not appear to have much of a problem, with the help of the media, in raising even hundreds of millions of dollars. I also don't believe in requiring media companies to ‘donate' time to candidates – they are private businesses and ought to remain so – no government should be allowed to ‘take' their inventory of time away from them.

What should happen is that the American public ought to demand a better result. We ought to have our major voices decry this money chase and not revel in it. The media pundits who love to report the fundraising totals ought to start reporting the candidates' substance and plans – not because they are forced to by government but because their viewership or readership demands it.

I built a team of committed professionals in each area - finance, marketing, production, purchasing, human resources, and put them to work laying out the very specific changes that would bring the company from a $17 million loss to a $3 million profit in one year.

So, it is up to us. We can go on with this system and elect the candidate who has the biggest smile or the best 30 second ad that does little more than gloss over their ideas or more likely beats up their opponent. Or, as the times require, we can demand that the media that we pay for do what is best for us and the country – start reporting on all legitimate candidates with relatively equal time and focus on ideas and substance – issues, not sound bites or the size of bankrolls.

Original URL:
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07apr09.purchasing.presidency/index.html