Campaign Finance and Hypocrisy

This election cycle is probably one of the most competitive in recent years and it is one which will set records on what candidates will spend to ascend to the highest office in the land. A realistic look at what is really going on and the hypocrite factor of the candidates, donors and special interest groups is really needed. Hopefully it will bring some much needed perspective to the election and open the eyes of those 'true believers' who are enamored with their candidate based on rhetoric and promises.

It is suggested that the nominee from each party will spend approximately $500,000,000 each by the end of the election cycle. Total expenditures will be over $2 billion for the entire presidential election cycle, not including races for the House and Senate. Candidates for the House and Senate will spend over $750 million running for their respective seats with an average expenditure for a Representative being around $512,000 and a Senator $1,275,000. The grand total spent on the 2008 election overall in national races will total over $5 billion when all is said and done.

Labor unions to date have donated over $18 million to Democrats and $2 million to Republicans, Big Oil to date has donated $2.1 million to Democrats and $5.6 million to Republicans and pharmaceutical companies to date have donated around $3.9 million to Democrats and surprisingly $3.7 million to Republicans.

392 PAC donations are split evenly between the parties with Democrats receiving to date $5.9 million and Republicans $6.3 million. Total spending by PAC'S will crest $20 million by November of 2008.

Hillary Clinton has spent over $40 million to date, Barack Obama over $44 million and Mitt Romney has spent over $52 million.

Campaign finance is out of hand and out of control. The same candidates who preach about “two Americas”, “leveling the playing field”, “plight of the homeless”, “the war on poverty” ,etc. are spending boatloads of money to win election to an office that will pay them a salary that is a mere pittance compared to what they are spending to get there.

Imagine what $5 billion would do for the causes that they claim to care so much about. They are running for office to influence public policy, calling for a repeal of the tax cuts so that everyone pays another couple of percentage points of their measly paychecks when the answer (the money) is right there in front of them.

The late Sam Kinison had a skit when he began his meteoric rise in comedy. Some of you might remember it as the World Hunger skit. Sam would tell the story of a documentary narrator reporting on starving children in Africa. In the end his punch line was that the person was standing in front of a starving child so just…”Give them a ------g sandwich!” This aptly applies to the amount of money spent on campaigns and the same simple principle holds true.

Candidates are spending millions to go to Washington and trickle down benefits to those whom they claim to care so much about. The millions are right in front of them…right NOW!

For Hillary, Obama, Giuliani or Edwards to spend millions while touting populist rhetoric about how much they care about the starving, suffering, poor, etc. is hypocrisy at its height. Imagine what that $5 billion could do if the donors and individuals donated that directly to the causes that the candidates are playing to in their bid for public office.

That $5 billion would take every homeless person off of the street for 3 years and place a roof over their head. It is 4 times the annual budget of the State of New Hampshire.

We constantly hear about “fairness” and how we need to level the playing field but we seldom hear the facts about the wealthy that control the Senate and House. That is right, 83 Congressmen and 27 Senators are millionaires. These same representatives decide whether or not we are going to pay an extra $2000 from our modest wages into the tax system; allowing them to spend it on pet projects and 'redistribute" it in a feel good fashion.

Here are a few facts that I bet most voters don’t realize: Ted Kennedy has a net worth of $45 million yet continues to speak about the plight of the ‘middle class’, ‘tax fairness’, etc. Open up your wallet if you care that much Teddy!

Jay Rockefeller earned $80 million in 2006, Nancy Pelosi champions worker’s rights and takes money from various labor unions while owning a $25 million Napa Valley vineyard operated as a non-union shop. Her net worth is over $45 million.

John Edwards has assets reportedly totaling as much as $25 million and he preaches to us about the “two Americas”, Bill Frist, John Kerry, John Corzine (now NJ Governor) and others round out this gang of millionaires. Romney is worth millions…..Don’t forget Harry Reid who has a net worth of over $11 million and is another supposed champion of the working man and “fairness”. We can't forget about John Kerry who married into $110 million and has no idea of the struggle of the common citizen.

In fact, in Massachusetts you can be taxed at a higher rate if you feel that you are not taxed enough based on your income or success; neither Kerry or Kennedy have ever checked that box on the Massachusetts Income Tax form.

In essence, those representing us determine what crumbs fall to the floor, how frequently and in what quantity. A tax cut of $400 to $600 for a family of four is a lunch for the power elite in Washington. It really isn't much different from a monarchy..not really much different at all!!!

The critics of 'trickle down' economics should, by now, realize that Democrats are practicing 'trickle down' promised prosperity from millionaires and attorney's. In Clinton's case, she stated very clearly: "some people are going to have to give some things up" in a speech about the haves and have nots. It is quite clear that she is not referring to her colleagues and including them in the "haves" category...she is referring to the ordinary citizen who struggles from pay check to pay check now.

No, this is not about envy of the wealth of others but it does speak volumes to the tactics that politicians use on both sides of the aisle when it comes to creating class envy and pitting those, for instance, earning $50,000 against those earning $80,000: or those earning $85,000 against those earning $120,000, They create class envy and talk about disparities, but the disparities are between their lifestyle and the rest of us; and the preaching about 'fairness', 'equity' and the plight of the middle class is simply rhetorical crowd pleasing . It is hypocrisy in it's purest form!

Not all of the candidates are wealthy and there are some who would govern the way that they promise in their campaigns. For me anyway, a Kucinich, Gravel or Paul presidency would be worse than anything we have at present and would do little to "rebuild the middle class" as they all tout as a guiding principle of their campaigns; a phrase that stirs emotions in those who have little understanding of what is really going on.

My point is that this all rings hollow as candidates crisscross the country standing up for the common man, middle class, the poor, the homeless, etc. Every one of these candidates is so far removed from ordinary working man and woman; many view ‘wealthy’ Americans as those who earn $180,000 or more annually. That is a very small fraction of the net worth of most of those in the running to lead our country. It is a shadow of the money donated by PAC’s, special interest groups, individuals, unions and industry.

If these people and organizations have the money to donate to campaigns; why don’t they just give it to the causes that the candidates purport to care about?

The answer is simple; power for the politicians, profits for unions and corporations and idealistic social change for activists. None of these groups care about the people they claim to stand up for.

What would $30,000,000 in union money do for those out of work in Detroit? Would it save their homes that are in jeopardy because the unions became greedy and caused them to lose their jobs? Absolutely!

What happened to the representative government that our forefathers set up and where are the statesmen who have genuine interest in limited governance, representation of the common man and freedom?

It disappeared long ago and this crop of candidates on both sides of the coin, represent opportunists with an agenda that is not in the interest of the voters but instead a power play and ego ride for themselves.

Here is a suggestion. We should choose a list  of social causes and change the campaign finance law and start there if anyone wants to “level the playing field”.

Require those donating to political campaigns to match their donations with one to charity. Therefore if the donation limit was, let’s say $2500 to a candidate; $1250 would go into a health care initiative, homeless program, etc. and the other half would go to the candidate’s campaign. It would solve many of the perceived social ills and candidates would have to make do with what they can scrape up. It would take some of the money out of the system, while doing some good!

Another suggestion is to eliminate contributions of all kinds and use public radio as the vehicle to get the message of the candidates out. Equal time, equal expenditure and equal coverage would give all candidates a fair shot through representing their views in a forum that is a true “level playing field”.

Finally, term limits are the answer to this issue in reality. Unfortunately, even ordinary citizens don't understand the need for limited control by lawyers and millionaires; instead, they settle for the crumbs and words of hypocrites. Until the regular voter smartens up...we are in for more of the same. Term limits would allow a more varied group of citizens to serve and send the attorney's and special interests packing!

Our founding fathers believed that ordinary people should represent their constituencies; not only lawyers and millionaires. The same should apply to the Supreme Court. Why should only attorneys be considered? There could scholars who advise justices with little or no background in "law". There could candidates who understand law but are not lawyers.

Unfortunately, until we get the money out of the system, nothing will change. It is unbelievable to me that charismatic leaders have the hold that they do over voters and cause a 'gush' as they make stump speeches claiming to care about their lives, while spending millions in a quest for power. Still the lemmings who vote for them stand by as "true believers" and in knee jerk fashion, give them the nod.

Now all of this probably sounds a bit radical but if any voter thinks that the rhetoric of caring about the little guy is anything similar to what that candidate will represent as a leader; they are naive at best and asking for a disaster in a worst case scenario.

PS-By the way, 33% of the House and 58% of the Senate are attorneys. 36% of the total Congress have a net worth of $5 million or more.

Does anyone think that these candidates understand the middle class? Or even truly care about it? It is doubtful!