I’m no fan of Mike Huckabee’s policies, but a comment in this article about his rising prospects in Iowa encapsulates what bothers me about political campaigns today.
Mr. Laudner said prospects beyond Iowa remained Mr. Huckabee’s chief hurdle among politically savvy caucusgoers. “If there isn’t going to be enough money to compete beyond Iowa and New Hampshire,†he said, “that goes to the heart of the viability question. That’s his No. 1 limit here.â€
In theory, it should cost zero dollars to compete, or at least zero dollars beyond whatever filing fees are required to get on the various ballots. After all, it doesn’t cost any money to vote. In an ideal world, all voters would be informed enough to examine the various candidates, all candidates would get equal news coverage, and there would be no polls subtly influencing our choices (“I like Candidate X a lot, but he’s only polling 3 percent so I should vote for Candidate Y instead”). In theory, a poor person should be able to get elected president, given wide enough appeal.
In the early years of our republic, candidates didn’t run for election; they “stood” for election. It was seen as undignified to campaign. Of course, in the early years, the general public had much less influence on presidential politics. In half the states, the public wasn’t even allowed to vote for presidential electors. And it’s only in the 20th century that the public began having a say in presidential primaries. The wider the voter base, the more energy a candidate has to expend appealing to it.
One could argue that the influence of money isn’t that distorting, because money reflects support. For instance, maybe if Huckabee were a stronger candidate, he’d be getting more donations. But if a candidate appeals to a wide swath a poor people and opposes the interests of the rich, the rich potential donors aren’t going to give that candidate money and he won’t get any traction.
Still, it seems odd to me that it’s a given that a candidate needs a ton of money to compete. Why will Huckabee need money to “compete” beyond Iowa and New Hampshire? If he does well enough in those states, he’ll get favorable media coverage, which will influence the public.
Of course, I’m probably wildly out of touch with “the people.” I choose my candidates by following the news, not by watching TV ads. The undecideds, those who make a difference in elections, probably watch the ads.
Still, it sucks that things are the way they are.
If we had a parliamentary system, one would be voting for the party and not necessarily the candidate — the party would handle nationwide campaigning and each candidate would only need to campaign within his or her own constituency.
Given that the wealth and large corporations are the real rulers of America, it’s only to be expected that the system would be the way that it is. I don’t suppose there’s any chance of real campaign finance reform, giving everyone equal publicity and coverage and each campaign funded equally from public money? I mean, where does that $3 one can add on one’s tax form actually go?
In 1987 I started to work in the Wisconsin State Assembly. This story is a bit dated but fits the theme of your post.
In 1988 I was in the midst of a legislative race from the inside, as the First Assembly District in Wisconsin became a battleground where Governor Thompson and the GOP tried to take control of the Assembly. While I had previously worked races from the outside, I had never viewed the world of politics from the center. It was energizing, until it started to get nasty and mean spirited. When the Governor patted my boss, an elected Democrat, on the head in public, like one would do to a little boy, I was ready for battle. But when the money started rolling in from our opponents to buy their slick ads, and horrible radio crap, I found the ideas of the campaign being dwarfed by political hi-jinks. We had our own funds to be sure, but spent less than 2/3rds of what the GOP did. The moneyed nature of the race took the luster off the campaign bunting.
History was made that year in Wisconsin as the GOP spent $50,000 on paper, which means that they likely spent over $75,000 for our Assembly seat, which only paid a salary of around $45,000 at that time. No one had ever spent that much money before on a race for the State Assembly in the Badger State! The GOP had shown raw political courage in their attempt to take even more power onto themselves.
The power/money that was wielded was awesome to see, and nauseating to feel. In the end the people in the rural areas voted like rural people generally do, in spite of the GOP using urban/big city campaign methods. It had backfired on the Republicans in 1988, and while the Democrat won the seat, the whole state of Wisconsin was about to lose in the long run. The cost of campaigning would never be the same again.
There is no way for an average person who works a regular job, but has a heart for politics, and a mind for policy, to ever compete with entrenched money that is at the heart of campaigns today.