To all those who think that money automatically buys elections, especially primary elections, I hope they’ve been paying attention to the Democratic primary election. Once again, evidence has arisen that money doesn’t have nearly the “corrupting influence” on politics that campaign finance reformers argue.
If you remember, Howard Dean was destroying all his Democratic competition in regards to how much money he could raise. Dean was setting all types of records for fundraising. According to opensecrets.org, Howard Dean has still raised about 50% more than Kerry and almost three times as much as Edwards, and that includes the respective downfall and rise in the Dean and Kerry campaigns.
According to the logic of campaign finance reformers, Dean should have sailed through the Democratic primary. But he lost, and he lost big.
President Bush has raised over four and a half times as much money as Kerry has, yet many polls show Kerry with a lead over Bush and the polls that show Bush winning also show the race to be very close.
Something is obviously wrong here, that is, if you believe the likes of John McCain and other campaign finance reform supporters. According to their theory, Howard Dean should have wrapped up the Democratic nomination by now but should be trailing huge to President Bush. Reality just doesn’t agree with the misconceptions of the campaign finance reform movement.
Respond to this posting
Back to top