On-Topic The Cost of an Election

[portchar1908]

The amount that will be spent on this year's presidential campaign (not to mention the sentate and congressional races) will be staggering, may reach 2-4 billion dollars, if not more.

Is this level of spending what our forefathers really envisioned? Or is it really necessary.
I know with our advance society and advanced technology comes advanced spending but really, is this much really needed to get the job done?

Maybe if there were two candidates worth a shit, then maybe it wouldn't take as much to try and tear the other one down.

Inflation aside, spending has taken on new heights, for instance in 1976 $66.9 million dollars was spent on the presidential election - in today's dollars that would only be $266,129,032.

$2.4 billion: Total spending by presidential candidates in 2008.

$345 million: Total spent by George W. Bush in the 2004 election

$310 million: Total spent by John Kerry in the 2004 election

$717.9 million: Total spending by presidential candidates in 2004

$343.1 million: Total spending by presidential candidates in 2000

$239.9 million: Total spending by presidential candidates in 1996

$192.2 million: Total spending by presidential candidates in 1992

$210.7 million: Total spending by presidential candidates in 1988

$103.6 million: Total spending by presidential candidates in 1984

$92.3 million: Total spending by presidential candidates in 1980

$66.9 million: Total spending by presidential candidates in 1976

 

[chance1]

Rareboy mentioned shortening the cycles .......... as they do in other countries, say 6-8 weeks instead of this

save money and aggravation

course the TV networks, cable nets, websites, news organizations would all LOSE OUT on advertising and content

 

[jackoroe]

On the surface, it doesn't appear to make sense to spend hundreds of millions on a job that pays less than $500k. But dig a little deeper and it makes sense. The government controls most of our economy through regulation of some sort or another. Regulated industries will contribute to your campaign to either be regulated less or get favorable tax laws benefitting them. Politicians are all whores, so they go hand in glove.

If the goverment ran as the founders intended, they wouldn't have nearly so much power and there would be a correspondingly lower probability that private concerns would be willing to pony up big dollars to fill those campaign coffers.

 

[JayHawk]

That is true Jack. Along with the fact that Congress critters typically do better on the market with their investments. Somehow as a group they just 'know' when good investments exist. There is absolutely no doubt that if you go to congress you leave a millionaire.

 

[Benvolio]

The figures are no doubt vastly understated. Do they include the amounts paid by sponsors of MSNBC? Amounts paid to produce and view the political movies intended to influence the election? Books? magazines?

 

[portchar1908]

the dollar amounts are not "understated", they come from historical record/data. The intent was to try and discern why candidates need to spend vast sums of money to get elected. What news networks and others spend covering, debating, or influencing anything as nothing to do with my intent of this thread.

motives to get elected (i.e. to have power, make millions after leaving office) wasn't really what I had in mind either. but do like the thinking.

i'm not advocating any sort of reform but if the amount of money one could contribute was to be regulated, maybe ... (yeah, i know we've been there done that), or as Chance/Rareboy suggests, limit the amount of time of the campaign.

$2-4 billion dollars is a lot just to elect someone to a public office for 4 years, albeit to the oval office.

 

[Benvolio]

Not really when you consider the Government spends many billions a day, and the President has a lot of influence on it.
The money spent by the media campaigning should be included since the candidates need money to counter their influence.

 

[Benvolio]

think of it as stimulus spending

personally, I'd like to see election spending controlled... there's already a box on your tax forms asking if you'd like to donate $X to public financing.

why not split that money among all candidates polling higher than whatever-percent and disallow outside spending... and if the American public chooses to donate $0 to fund campaign commercials and robocalling, the people have spoken.

I suspect the only solution is to change to a parliamentary system where the premier is not directly elected by the people, but by the Congress.

 

[opinterph]

I suspect the only solution is to change to a parliamentary system where the premier is not directly elected by the people, but by the Congress.

I suspect that might help citizens to recognize the importance of congressional elections. On the other hand, there is already a provision in the Constitution empowering the House of Representatives to choose the president in certain circumstances.

 

[rareboy]

Political campaigns are a key part of the US economy.

 

[portchar1908]

I suspect with our "do-nothing-Congress", we'd never have a premiere. so i don't think that would work well for us.

I suspect the only solution is to change to a parliamentary system where the premier is not directly elected by the people, but by the Congress.

 

[Benvolio]

I suspect with our "do-nothing-Congress", we'd never have a premiere. so i don't think that would work well for us.

That is largely a function of the Senate filibuster rule, which I think the Republicans will eliminate if they get the White House and Congress this year, which seems probable.