Comments on: Politics is Big Business

By: Danielle

Danielle — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:46:10 +0000

Wellesley College tuition is $43,288 a year. She could have paid for 4,897 first year scholarships.

I thought the examples for Family Values, Womens Issues and the Economy were pretty weak.

I would be interested in seeing how this number has changed since JFK was president, adjusted for inflation of course

By: Zian

Zian — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:15:58 +0000

@Jamillah
$0

It was considered ungentleman-like to campaign for a public office.

By: Fabulously Broke

Fabulously Broke — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:20:33 +0000

What a great article. I’m linking to this in my next round of link love. It really puts all this foolishness into perspective

By: Jamillah

Jamillah — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:00:52 +0000

That is ridiculous. That is crazy. I could help charity, buy a bunch of cars and houses, clean up a dozen people credit and finance 401Ks.

See that is why it is beyond anyone means if they want to run for office. Most of the people are flithy rich. The founding father would turn in their graves over the amount that is spent. I wonder what George Washington had in his Presidential war chest??

By: nickel

nickel — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:41:01 +0000

Michele: Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but according to this report, Obama's spending is on par with Clinton's through the month of April (May numbers will be out in about a week). Yes, he raised a lot more money than her, but it sure doesn't look like he's been outspending her 4-1. Bottom line: She lost, so people are dumping on her. That's the way it works. The same sorts of articles would be getting written about Obama if he had lost.

By: Michele

Michele — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:33:10 +0000

Gee, Obama outspent Hillary 4 to 1. Why are there no lists about him. Honestly, it is very telling that Hillary always is singled out for this stuff. As offended as I am at the Rampant spending to get a job that pays $300,000 a year. This blantant dig at Hillary yet again really offends me. Its all about perception.

By: MInTheGap

MInTheGap — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:56:30 +0000

It is amazing how much is spent, and yet I’m not sure that campaign finance reform is the way to go, Cabby. I mean, look at how broken the system is now– where whole television networks can ignore some candidates (Fox News and Ron Paul), can pretend that there’s only two political parties (what about the Libertarian, Constitution, etc. party candidates), etc.

There has to be some money for these people to go out and meet the voters. Now, changing how television works might be an option– opening up the debates to all the candidates, providing a weekly platform to get the message out, etc. Eliminating all commercials, or giving all equal time might help– and the Internet has done a lot to equalize this playing field.

I just don’t think I want the media and the government telling me who the candidates are and how much money a candidate can spend. I see that as a path to ensuring votes like those joke votes for Sadaam before Iraq was toppled.

I mean, look at the gerrymandering states do now to make sure the incumbents win. Congress has no incentive to do anything but help itself.

By: Cabby

Cabby — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:02:52 +0000

Enough already. It is time we have campaign finance reform.

By: "Mo" Money

"Mo" Money — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:08:47 +0000

With all the money spent by the candidates, do you think the economy is in bad shape? I suppose that most of that money was from large corporations and the very rich, and not the common ordinary person.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:05:05 +0000

You should add the spending of Obama, McCain, etc etc etc to the total and see what we could have done to our national debt, improving schools, taking care of wounded veterans, etc. Heck, it might of even paid for the (IMHO ridiculously stupid) economic stimulus checks.