|
George Washington may have shunned the opportunity to become king of the United States, but it is nonetheless the fact that the expenses of running for the presidency nowadays are costs truly fit for an emperor.
Indeed, these expenditures have exploded over the last several presidential election cycles. In 1992 total spending by all presidential candidates came to a little over $192 million. Eight years later, in 2000, they had grown to more than $343 million. So far in 2008, all candidates that have been running for this highest office had spent almost $834 million, practically a two-and-a-half fold increase since the last presidential race – and this year’s campaign still has several months to go! So far this year, all of the presidential contenders combined have spent the equivalent of .06 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product in trying to win the brass ring to the White House. This means that we are that much poorer in terms of real goods and services that might have been produced if that $834 million had been used in private-sector business activity geared toward consumer demand instead. To win the Democratic Party nomination, Barack Obama has spent, through June 2008, over $267 million, with an additional $71.6 million in cash on hand. His leading opponent in the primaries, Hillary Clinton, spent more than $233 million. Over on the Republican side, John McCain expended almost $110 million to win his party’s candidacy, and had $35.6 million available in cash at the end of June. McCain’s closest rival in the primaries, Mitt Romney, spent $107 million in his unsuccessful bid for the nomination, with $35.4 million coming out of his own pocket. Ron Paul, with his very successful online fund-raising effort, raised $35.5 million, in spite of the relatively low number of votes he accumulated in the Republican primaries. His far more voter-successful opponent, Mike Huckabee, only got $16 million in donations. Through the end of July, the Democratic Party has raised over $416 million, and has spent a bit less than $300 million with well over $100 million in cash for the fall campaign.The Republican Party has raised $457 million, almost 10 percent more than the Democrats, and has spent $337 million with about $129 million in ready cash. Where have the donations come from, geographically? The top five states with generous presidential campaign contributors have been: California ($92.4 million); New York ($82 million); Texas ($41 million); Florida ($39.2 million); and Illinois ($30.7 million). Based on data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, the table below shows the leading sectors from which the two major parties have raised these huge sums of money. 
For the presidential candidates, respectively, the sectoral donations have come from the following sources: The Democratic Party in general as well as the Obama campaign have been succeeding far better than the Republicans and McCain in raising money from their diverse sectoral and professional groups. Certainly in those sectors from which the largest contributions have come – Communications/Electronics; Financial/Insurance/Real Estate; Lawyers/Law Firms; and Misc. Business; and “Other” – the Democrats and Obama have been heads-and-shoulders over the Republicans and McCain. Some historians and contemporary political commentators have referred to America’s “imperial presidency.” Certainly in terms of the vast sums of money expended in pursuit of winning the White House it reflects the high authority that the office represents to those handing over their private dollars to the candidate of choice. It also tells us how much centralized power has come to reside in the office of the president that so many citizens consider it so important to invest in assuring that the person sitting in the Oval Office will use that power to serve their interests rather than someone else’s. We have come along way from the earlier conception of government under which all citizens possessed equal rights under the Rule of Law, with favors for none at others’ expense. If that older conception of government and the presidency still prevailed there would be no need to invest so much in deciding who will become the Chief Executive of the United States.
|
