Regarding Nigel Stark's account of campaign finance, first, the idea that more money equals more ads equals more chance of recognition and acceptance is elementary marketing, not some misguided conspiracy. So Bush’s extra money does give him an advantage, just as Dean’s did.
Rather than looking at the fact that Dean had more money but lost, look at the fact that this unknown, stiff necked, verbally challenged man was able to compete against known war hero politician Kerry for the highest office in the nation at all. He was able to do so in part because he had the money to offset his negative factors. Kerry has fewer negative factors, so needs less money. Bush has a lot more negative factors, so needs a lot more money.
Plus, in addition to his own performance, Bush is down in the polls in part precisely because he isn’t spending a lot of his money right now, while the Democrats are and are getting extra press due to the Democratic caucuses.
And who has the most money is not the only campaign finance concern. Where campaign money comes from, and what politicians do to keep their donors happy, is an equally, if not more important, problem.
Written by Randy Henderson, a regular contributor to NEXT.
Respond to this posting
Back to top