There are only 400 Americans who have twice that, and none of them are interested in burning half of their net worth to run.
So that leaves us with influence peddling, because nobody who has the money wants to be the next Ross Perot.
But why does it take that much money?
2007-09-06 10:41:40 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
EDIT: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/WhosBuyingTheNextPresident.aspx
The Democrats and Republicans together have raised $154M in the first quarter of 2007, and roughly another $128M in the second quarter. And the elction is still 14 months away.
2007-09-06 10:53:49 · update #1
Mitt Romney's going up against Rudy Giuliani (America's Mayor), John McCain (who came oh so close to beating George W. Bush for the nomination in 2000), and Fred Thompson (about fifty times the screen credits of every other candidate combined). You want to run against people like that, you need to get your face on the air. That takes a lot of money.
Ten months ago, if you had asked anyone in Iowa or New Hampshire who Mitt Romney was, they'd have probably said something like "Didn't he play for the New York Rangers?" Now, he's in first place in both states. That's because he's spent so much money putting ads on the air and traveling all across each state all the time.
You want to know why the other candidates aren't doing better, it's because they can't afford to do better. Mitt Romney raised over $20 million in the first quarter, and around $15 million in the second. Ron Paul's supporters keep saying things like, "Well, Ron Paul's got more cash on hand than most of the other campaigns, and he does most of his campaigning on the Internet, which is smart." Apparently not, though. Mitt Romney's pretty much proven that, if you want to gain ground in the polls (which he has done every day since he started running), then you need to get out into the real world.
Ron Paul has so much cash because he doesn't spend anything. That's why he's so far behind in the polls. Mitt Romney's so far ahead because he spends so much. And if (when) he gets elected next year, it will be because he spent so much money making sure people know who he is and what he believes. You need to have money to spend it.
2007-09-06 12:05:30 · answer #1 · answered by Paper Mage 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The campaigns of the flushest front-runners (the Democrats, natch, you don't want to bribe someone who's not going to win) are pulling in 20 or 30 million a quarter. At that rate, no one would have a half-billion in contributions by the close of the race at the end of '08. I've comments to the effect that something like 100 mil is expected - and that's up dramatically.
As to why, I suppose advertising is getting more expensive, and voters may be sufficiently demoralized that candidates need more of it to get thier supporters out.
2007-09-06 17:54:48 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think money is wrong!!! In england where i've lived for 10 years, they don't need millions to run. There aren't millions of commercials of their campaign on TV. Basically, the news programs give them their shot to speak their minds, and that's that.
It's not right that you have to have money to run!! We have lost some good candidate because of that. And these slimy politicians beg for money from the very people who they want on their side voting for them. So when/if they do get elected, they get to stab you in the back by going against the very ideas they claimed to have.
It's a scam and a way to blow money. There should be a law limiting the amount of money your allowed to spend on a campaign.
Their all a bunch of bloody liars anyways!!!
Tho I like Ron Paul, but i'm getting emails to donate money and I say F**CK off!! He won't give that back when he's got lots of cushy perks!
2007-09-07 09:33:12 · answer #3 · answered by jennifer_santolla 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because that's how much the media whores demand to produce and air their political ads.
And, no, Alan, that number isn't far off from the estimates of how much the winner of the next election will have spent getting there...half a billion friggin' dollars. (Okay, maybe that's the total for the whole election...it's still beyond ridiculous.)
2007-09-06 17:54:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because everything is rigged, and the system is set up so that it is more beneficial to people who have more money.
2007-09-06 19:15:12 · answer #5 · answered by jayztttight 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It does not. There has to be something off with that number.
2007-09-06 17:47:42 · answer #6 · answered by Alan C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋