Mar

16

Big Fat Money Mess

Posted by Little Miss Know it All

March 16, 2007 |

So, Little Miss Know it All wants a show of hands.  How many of you think money plays too large a role in politics?  How many of you think its the ONLY thing that matters in politics?

I’m not willing to go quite that far.  I’ve been around enough to not be naive and think that it doesn’t play a large role, but I’ve also seen politicians do things just because its important to them or their voters.

But most people do think that money is the motivating factor for all politicians.  And with California’s move yesterday of their primary to early February, that will become an even bigger reality in national elections. 

Until recently, the trend has been of states moving their primaries later, in reaction to campaign fatigue.  But that seems to be dying.  With this annoyingly early primary run in the Presidential race, (does anyone even understand that the elections are NEXT YEAR?  Who cares what the poll numbers are now?) and the staggering number of voters actually paying attention this early says that we’re done with that trend.  Now a large number of states are rushing to have their primaries earlier, out of Iowa/New Hampshire envy.  They’re envious of all of the attention Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire get by having their primaries early.

What does this mean in reality though?  All these states together (or even California alone) are too big for candidates to cover in the traditional press-the-flesh type of politics enjoyed by Iowa and New Hampshire.  It means that lots of money has to be raised at the very beginning of a campaign to fund a torrent of tv and radio ads.  And by lots of money, I mean millions upon millions.  And what does that mean?  Not only more money in the political cycle, but an earlier beginning to primaries, as campaigns must front load their campaigns with money.  It also means that good candidates who may not be able to raise big money right away will be excluded from the process.  Those proponents of more citizen-candidates can kiss that wish goodbye.

It also means that California’s intent will likely backfire.  It will make small states like Iowa and New Hampshire even more important, because their primaries are still a month earlier.  And without the rolling primary system that we have now, whoever wins in Iowa and New Hampshire will have huge benefits over the other candidates.  It gives even more power into very small voter blocks.

To me, this is just another sign that this country doesn’t know what it wants!  We are experiencing wild swings in the pendulum, politically and socially.  From Clinton in the early 90’s, the champion of liberal thought, to radical republican revolution in the mid to late 90’s and through the Bush White House, and back again to Democrats in power.  I could list these all day.  When will we settle in the middle?  Or will we continue on with these wild swings?

Let me know what you think.


Comments

3 Comments so far

  1. Batocchio on March 16, 2007 10:16 pm

    I agree. While Iowa and NH are not representative of the country, their citizens take politics very seriously. California is so vast and ad time so expensive it skews the money advantage even worse. I’d like to see more public financing of elections, for one thing. Alas, that ain’t going to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, I’d love to see some sensible overall primary proposal.

  2. Little Miss Know it All on March 17, 2007 7:51 am

    The great thing about small states going first is that it gave little guys a chance to make a name for themselves. Like Bill Clinton, he was just some unheard of also-ran…until the New Hampshire primary when he came out of nowhere to finish in the top choices. Dwight Eisenhower was another chosen out of New Hampshire. And New Hampshire actually has a law on their books that says they will be the first primary in the US, so they will always move their primary earlier than any other states.

  3. Rooster1 on March 19, 2007 6:39 pm

    The BIGGGGG money spent on the Presidential campaigns has all but ruined the election process. What really scares me even more is the trend towards most statewide or even county canidates having to be multi-millionaires in order to run! i.e. Lunsford, Harper, Drees, B. Jones, olde Wally W.,the list could go on for days. If they were not millionaires when they were elected, they are by the time they leave office. Then you add all of their political appointess that are well above the American median income, and you become a government of the money, and for the money, not for the people and of the people. Where did we go wrong?
    The more you study the American political system, the more you come to realize that it morally bankrupt. We are way beyond the campaign finance reforms that everyone keeps harping about. Where does one start?

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

<< Post Navigation >>

« « Gentle wave, or revolution? | KY races and local politics » »