Cash-driven campaigns

This weekend, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign announced its fundraising totals for the month of September. With contributions from over three million donors, the Obama campaign scraped together $150 million, devastating all previous records.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect of an eventful campaign is the amount of money raised and spent in pursuit of the Oval Office. Earlier this year, hopefuls Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both broke the previous quarterly fundraising records, posting figures of $26 million and $14 million, respectively. Those numbers now seem miniscule in comparison to the dollars Obama is putting away (John McCain has opted for federal funding during the general election). Projections of the final campaign tally for national and state office this year total somewhere in the billions.

When contemplating the effect of all this money, you have to wonder: What are the people who are giving getting in return for their hard-earned dollars? Do we really believe that over one billion dollars are given without any expectation of return?

Common sense says no. Despite the inclusion of millions of small donors, many are acting at the directive of larger organizations, all of which expect to see some return on their political investment.

Distribution of one's message, the key to electoral success, is now dominated by communications technology. Market forces demand cash to gain access. When a candidate gains the upper hand with the ability to drive home the message, races become less competitive. For these reasons the stakes of national or state campaigns are the highest.

It concerns me that political success has become so tied to cash access. It seems that once in power, those who have benefited from generous donations will have to show their patrons undue favor as they carry out the duties of their positions. Legislative action, statute enforcement, and favorable policies often seem to follow for those who help the winners win.

Halliburton wins no-bid contracts after helping elect George W. Bush. Federal employees find available salaries and positions expanded following the election of Bill Clinton. John McCain nearly lost his Senate seat after taking minor action on behalf of donor Charles Keating. Hillary Clinton's campaign took a major hit after a scandal involving illegal bundling and donor fraud stemming from a questionable long-time supporter.

The money needs to be eliminated. If national campaigns were funded from taxpayer dollars only, our representatives could exercise greater autonomy, while allowing us to put more trust in them. Sadly, attempts at removing money from the process have led to further confusion and the exploitation of new loopholes. Following the reforms of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, where political campaigns have not been able to raise and spend, 527 organizations and special tax status fundraisers pick up the slack to spread a candidate's message -usually with less honesty and accountability.

Some make the argument that cash donations allow the public to vote with their pocketbooks, by supporting their favored candidate as a form of freedom of speech. The logic goes: if people think this individual is the right pick, then they should be allowed to help get the word out through cash donations. This right has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

So, the spending spree goes on. Political ads dominate the media during all hours of the day, particularly in the swing states. Research shows that access to cash is a key factor in launching, sustaining, and winning political campaigns. Until we as a people can devise and agree on the best mechanism for eliminating cash-driven politics, our best defense is to conduct our own research and shut out the competing, generally misleading voices.

This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.