Money still talks loudest
For all the talk of change in this election, money still talks loudest.
That's according to a nonpartisan watchdog group that reported this afternoon that besides Barack Obama, who broke all presidential fund-raising records and was the first major-party nominee to reject public financing, the candidate who spent the most money won 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of US Senate races that had been decided by mid-day today.
The Center for Responsive Politics, basing its findings on candidates' spending through Oct. 15, as reported to the Federal Election Commission, said the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32 settled Senate races.
The trend is par for the course. In 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. And in 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.
"The 2008 election will go down in U.S. history as an election of firsts, but this was far from the first time that money was overwhelmingly victorious on Election Day," Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said in a statement. "The best-funded candidates won nine out of 10 contests, and all but a few members of Congress will be returning to Washington."
Comment
Permalink
EmailThis blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
About Political Intelligence
News from the Washington Bureau
Two years from now, many of Obama's fairy tales, deceptions, lies and failures will be evident, and it will be much more difficult for the democrats to blame their mistakes on the Republicans than it was in this election, Bush won't be President then, and the democrats will have to account for things they've done and not done. We Republicans will be keeping itemized lists of it all, and we'll be waiting, as we will four years from now.
That would sound pretty damning, as if the country is brainwashed by money. But isn't money a symptom of a popular coampaign?
"The Golden rule is that those with the gold, make the rules."; "Money talks; bs walks." Did people really think, that "the rich" were going to just bend over and say BOHICA if Obama got elected? Change will come ONLY if we ban lobbyists and stop corruption in our legislature. We need to have mini task forces of 3 IRS agents and one citizen PER Senator and Congressperson. They will monitor for new boats, home improvements, etc that there is no record of earned income to pay for it. Otherwise, as before, it will be the middle class that earns any kind of good income that will be seeing the tax increases.
Money talks for sure. Nothing wrong with electing an African American, but you want to elect the right one. Electing an open border socialist who despises the Constitution was not a wise pick. But hey make it a racial thing if it gets you by. Never mind the details.
"That would sound pretty damning, as if the country is brainwashed by money. But isn't money a symptom of a popular coampaign?"
Mike, it can be, but often isn't. Google "The Cabinet" and "mafia" for a Time magazine article on a group from the left side. They make and break candidates. (And certainly there are equivalent groups on the right, as well as ones that exist soley for the Dollar.)
The media would want you to think that Money is a symptom of a popular campaign. That way, the candidates would try to raise more money and spend on ads, benefitting the bottomline of the media companies and those who work in them would hence keep their jobs. I think the problem in this election is that much of the money was raised on the Internet, a platform that is rife with fraud. We have all heard a million times already how we can be screwed conducting business on the Internet. There are a lot of illegal and criminal groups using all kinds of scams to achieve their ends. I wouldn't be surprised if a good percentage of the sources of the donations on the Internet are non-American. However, their activities may be directed by American interests.
Money doesn't "buy" elections, it buys speech. Our stifling system of campaign finance "reform" makes it more difficult to raise money to challenge entrenched interests. Only voters can "make or break" candidates, all the "rich" can do is help to enable their favored candidates to put their message before the voters.
Citizens, either as individuals or working together, should not be limited in their freedom to support the candidates and causes of their choice. You can learn more at my organization, www.campaignfreedom.org
Whenever you try to reform campaign finance people say money is free speech but then those some jerks say exotic dancing isn't free speech when a young lovely rubs herself on me for some of my free speech.