Money Over Matter

April 6, 2007

There is an alarming trend in American politics in the current presidential election cycle. Candidates are beginning their campaigns earlier than ever before and raising more money than in past presidential campaigns—and the media has an insatiable taste for reporting on these vast sums of money as opposed to candidate’s positions on the issues. In December 2006 the Washington Post reported that the Federal Election Commission “predicted that 2008 will produce the first $1 billion presidential race and that the $500 million each party’s candidate will need to compete will severely limit the field of contenders.”

The most reported story as of this week is the first quarter primary earnings results, the type of financial terminology one would expect to hear in relation to stock markets and blue chip companies, but is now referencing the total campaign contributions raised by presidential candidates in the initial months of the year. The winner of this horse race was New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised $26 million in the first quarter and beat out her Democratic rivals, some of whom have not yet reported earnings but are expected to have fallen short. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney led Republicans with $23 million, ahead of former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, $15 million, and Arizona Senator John McCain, $12.5 million. Clinton’s cache broke records as the largest sum ever raised by a Democrat in a single campaign quarter. Add the $10 million transferred from her 2006 senate campaign and her war chest is bursting with $36 million.

The New York Times, along with its media competitors, has filled an inordinate number of pages with stories detailing just about every last dollar raised in these early presidential campaigns—especially the fundraising events of Senator Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Clinton campaign stories have included the daily grind of cross-country campaign rallies, to the far fetched exploits of President Clinton which that include numerous star-studded dinners and even a $2,300-a-bike rally at a Manhattan spin class.

The line between campaigning and fundraising is increasingly blurred by the necessity of candidates to stuff their bank accounts or else risk fading from the headlines. And since the headlines are increasingly focused on fundraising (contributions) versus campaigning (issues), aspiring candidates will literally lose position without raking in the millions. Patrick Healy, who covers the Clinton beat for the Times, is perhaps the worst offender of an indulgent brand of political coverage that appears to lose more perspective each day. Healy has devoted a great number of columns in the past few months to detailed accounts of the financial exploits of the Clintons, and while his serious political journalism is commendable, the temptation to focus on money over politics will doom the nation to ignorance when it votes in November 2007.
The issue at stake might not seem pressing to the American democracy. Does it really make a difference if candidates are receiving more contributions now than in the last election cycle? If newspapers devote their front page headlines to multimillion dollar figures and relegate candidate’s discussions of universal healthcare and global warming to the mirth of back pages and blurbs on page A28, will that make a difference?

Money has always played a central role in politics, especially presidential races. In a republican government in a capitalist nation it would be difficult to run a campaign without financial backing. The ever-increasing wealth required to run as a successful candidate, however, disenfranchises the majority of potential candidates, and if figures keep rising then things will undoubtedly get worse before they get better. Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich is just one example of a candidate whose chances of victory were almost doomed from the start. He may have more national political experience than other Democrats and Republicans running for a 2008 election bid and may have started his campaign earlier than most other candidates, but there is one thing Kucinich is lacking. His campaign raises only paltry sums of money. Thus he receives token coverage—at best—in the mainstream media and is only occasionally mentioned as a footnote in discussions on the election.