Life as Usual in Board Rooms and Back Rooms

Adjust font-size: + 
More: Hedging

A Cynical Analysis of Influence in the US Presidential Elections

I howl as loudly as the next voter about the taint of money in major U.S. elections. Candidates are more influenced by those in board rooms and back rooms than they are by "regular" US citizens. While campaign laws seek
 to limit individual contributions, PACs and packaging (grouping individual donations and presenting them to the campaign as a unit) make their way around the laws, which really don't have serious teeth for biting the backside of errant politicians anyway. Any attempt to prevent industries and PACs from spending money in the hopes of gaining influence appears hopeless.

The best we can hope for is full disclosure, and with the help of web sites like OpenSecrets.org (run by the Center for Responsive Politics), to learn something about where campaign funds are coming from. However, rather than give up, I've decided to apply my cynicism to learn more about the presumed presidential candidates, McCain and Obama. The bad news is that the money keep pouring in, and the differences are probably less significant than the similarities. The good news is that all that campaign spending might reach levels that actually help the economy!

The question of whether or not campaign funds actually influence candidate behavior has been debated without a clear winner. It seems, though, that industries and PACs would not spend the money if they didn't hope to garner some influence. Some argue that industries and PACs, like individuals, select the candidate that they think already holds sympathetic views. Others argue that the U.S. government is on the auction block, policies to the highest bidder. Many point out that a number of special interests donate to both sides, hedging their bets as it were. In any case, analyzing the differences between campaign financing would be a great way to figure out the real differences, if any, between the likely policies of the two candidates. So, forget the rhetoric, the ads, the spin, the lovely and inspiring speeches, and dive into the financial mud. Remember the adage: follow the money.

Published by Michael Dickel, Ph.D.
Michael Dickel publishes poetry, photos, essays and occasional fiction all over the world. He lives with his wife, Aviva, in Jerusalem, Israel, where he teaches English writing at The Hebrew University.  View profile
  
Type in Your Comments Below

Unfortunately, the US presidency has been for sale for generations now. Campaign finance reform, to be meaningful, would have to thoroughly constrain both donations and expenses. I don't see that happening when the incumbents benefit from the status quo.
Comment 1 (of 1) 
Share
Tweet
Share on Facebook
Post a comment
1
I like this
Most Commented