The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

Dollars dominate presidential campaign

LAST WEEK Elizabeth Dole dropped out of the presidential race. She decided that she was unable

to compete with frontrunner George W. Bush because of his overwhelming lead in fundraising. There is something wrong when qualified candidates drop out of the race more than a year before the election and months before the first primary.

Many people are disinterested in the presidential campaign. They think it's simply too early to get involved, to become concerned, to choose one candidate over another. Yet we have to. If we don't start supporting somebody, Bush will lock up the nomination, primarily through his fundraising ability and the media frenzy that has surrounded his campaign.

Some of the most qualified individuals already have quit the race. And they quit largely because of financial considerations.

"The bottom line was money," Dole said. "It would be futile to continue," she stated in announcing her withdrawal from the presidential race. She said Bush and publisher Steve Forbes "would have enjoyed a 75-to-1 or 80-to-1 cash advantage. I can handle 2-to-1 or even 10-to-1, but not 80-to-1" ("Dollars Dictate Field's Early Exits," Oct. 21, The Washington Post). Dole reported raising just $1 million from July to September, compared to Bush's receipts of $20.2 million during the same period.

White House spokesman Joe Lockhart told reporters, "It underscores at least among Republicans how little the ideas mean and how much the money means."

While Lockhart's comment obviously is partisan, he still makes a good point that money, not issues, have dominated the campaign thus far. Candidates frequently drop out because of financial woes, but candidates' departures are taking place months before any votes are cast. We do not have the luxury to wait until primary season begins to start thinking about who we want to support. If we wait too long, the primaries will be decided for us by the size of the candidates' bank accounts.

Perhaps this seems cynical, but consider how the Republican field has been winnowed out already.

So far, we have seen politically experienced individuals like House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, former Senator and Vice President Dan Quayle, former Governor and Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander, Sen. Bob Smith, and now former Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, drop out of the race. Rick Davis, Senator John McCain's campaign manager, told The Washington Post, "When you have a former vice president, a former governor [and Dole] not being able to survive even to the first caucus, it is a bad commentary on the system." ("Dollars Dictate Field's Early Exits," Oct. 21).

Some of these candidates never had a chance from the beginning, based on their lack of support. But Dole is different from these other candidates, and this is what makes her exit so disconcerting. Everyone other than Dole who has dropped out of the Republican field has had two problems: no support and no money. Dole only had one of these problems. She was running second, albeit a distant second, to Bush. A Washington Post poll completed last week found Bush to have 63 percent support of Republicans surveyed. Dole was second with 12 percent, with all other candidates in single digits.

Tim Russert, NBC Washington bureau chief, noted Dole's successes in an interview on Oct. 20 with MSNBC. "She had been doing quite well on the stump - recruiting professional women, creating some excitement, some energy amongst that element of the Republican Party - but she decided that without the resources necessary, she would not mount a credible challenge to George W. Bush."

She had support. She was seen as Bush's prime challenger, and yet she had to end her campaign shortly after it began because of the electoral process's dependence upon funding.

The race has become so long that only those with immensely deep pockets can stay in it for the duration. This has led to a rise in wealthy candidates who have nothing on their political resume. We have people like Donald Trump, Ross Perot and Warren Beatty threatening to throw their hats into the ring. It seems as if anyone with money can instantly become a political presence. Look at the utterly unqualified Steve Forbes. He has accomplished little other than managing his father's magazine and fortune, and yet he's a force in this election because of money.

Bush's deep pockets could allow him to steamroll more qualified candidates like Senators McCain and Orrin Hatch.

We need to reform this process to keep money from having such a significant impact on our electoral process. Money should not be the determining factor. Issues and ideas should. And it seems like such changes are not imminent, considering the defeat of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill last week.

For now, at least, we must live with this system, and although the election is more than a year away, it is time to pay attention. If we don't, we will inevitably be left only with the candidates who have large bankrolls. Men and women with ideas, but no money, will disappear from the field. It may be early, but because of weaknesses in our electoral system, we have to begin paying attention to the race even now.

(Peter Brownfeld's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily.)

Comments

Latest Podcast

The University’s Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admission, Greg Roberts, provides listeners with an insight into how the University conducts admissions and the legal subtleties regarding the possible end to the consideration of legacy status.



https://open.spotify.com/episode/02ZWcF1RlqBj7CXLfA49xt