Home > B3 and B4, Learning > A Dollar Paid is a Dollar Earned… Or is it?

A Dollar Paid is a Dollar Earned… Or is it?

You can never have enough money!

Money has always been a contributing factor in political races across the political spectrum, but lately, money seems to bear an even greater importance in the races. An executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network states, “Throughout this decade, money wins 95% of the time.” Also, a research which has been taking place for many years states that it costs about 16% more money each year in order to run. This being said, limited money can be a problem, especially if you intend to win. Another interesting fact concerning money is that to run for state House and Senate, winners in this decade have spent upward of $100,000. With all of this eye opening evidence and blatant facts, there is no way to disprove the fact that more money equals more votes, right? Wrong. To understand why this is wrong, you must know that you could have a billionaire running against a millionaire. Both people can support their dues and successfully run to win, but does the billionaire have the edge? not at all. For example, at this year’s 2012 Iowa Caucus, Rick Santorum defeated big names such as Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul, who spent over 20 million dollars each in Iowa. Santorum only spent one million dollars all in, yet he came out on top. Despite this being a small battle in the war for the Republican nomination, it speaks volumes for those candidates with less funding who want to compete and win their political race.

Super PACs are also very important when it comes to money and elections. PAC stands for ‘Political Action Committee,’ this organization campaigns for or against political candidates. Federally, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives more than $1,000, while at the state level, an organization becomes a PAC depending on that state’s election laws. These Super PACs are sometimes the deciding factor when it comes to more money and more votes. So all of this being said, while it is probably true that ‘A dollar paid is a dollar earned,’ it all depends on how this money is being gathered, whether it be from donations, outside spending, government plans, or Super PACs. For example, these Super PACs can collect unlimited amounts of money, and use it all toward one candidate whom they want to win. With all of these overwhelming facts and enticing ideas pushing me farther toward the pro side of this argument, I still have my doubts. For example, think of two candidates in around January, and think about who might be the richer candidate by that November. Say they both get millions and millions over this time span, but candidate #1 makes 50 million more than candidate #2. Candidate #1 won right? maybe, maybe not. Candidate #2 could actually have won because his net worth would be higher, therefore it didn’t matter what sum of money he made, because his net worth was already larger. This being said, I believe that it is not possible at all to know how much money really matters when it comes to campaigns when only factoring in who wins and loses.

In my opinion, modern politics is one of the most complicated systems around when it comes to raising, spending, or anything money. There are so many important factors like votes prior to an election, primaries, finding good candidates, and the fund raising, which all require lots of money. Our country faces deadly challenges, lots of upkeep, and lots of demand for leadership, and these are the factors which should win over money every time. In the end, gold doesn’t always buy you success in politics, but you better be willing to get some, because in the long run it could be the difference between success and failure.

More money better elections?

Advertisements
  1. clairecriss
    May 1, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    This is really well written, the only major comment I have is teh fact that you might want to add more pictures. Your ideas are original and the way you hyperlinked were well done.

    • May 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm

      Why thank you, I will add a picture pronto.

  2. katherinegperry
    May 1, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    First of all, I love the title. Its catchy and a great way to start the post. Also, I love the political cartoon at the beginning. You did a great job of adding things that will draw readers in. In the first paragraph though, you say “a research”. You might want to change that to a research study or a study just to avoid confusion. You did a great job of using hyperlinks, and I think the rhetorical questions in the first paragraph are fantastic. The hypothetical with the candidates was good too. You just might want to add a few more images though. Your paragraphs are long, and readers might want an image or something to kind of give their minds a break (if that made sense). But overall the post was very good.

    • May 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm

      I totally agree on the paragraphs being too long! I need to give the reader a break your definitely right.

  3. ridagov
    May 1, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    WHOA! Definitely really like this post a lot, just a few minor things. 1) More pictures (I see Katy has already pointed that out to you) 2) also like Claire mentioned this was quiet a long blog post, you want to keep your reader interacted and willing to read this, maybe cut some stuff out or break your paragraphs up a little bit more.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: