Author Archive

Support for Romney and His Money

May 16, 2012 Leave a comment

In April president Obama Raised 43.6 million dollars for his campaign, which vastly out numbers the amount Romney raised for his campaign. One thing Romney did receive the former president’s approval and has endorsed which will change the way this election goes.

In our Government Class we’ve discussed the importance money in how successful someone is in the elections. Obama has superior amounts of money compared to Romney, but he may be gaining a surplus of money due to the endorsement by Bush.

Currently Obama is leading the race to the presidency by a large margin. Both George Bush and his wife Barbra currently support Romney. The more support he has from larger political face, the more he may be able to raise for his campaign. The more money he has the greater chance he has for beating out Obama and take over the presidency. It is said that if Romney could do so, he would be the richest man ever to live in the White House.

Being a reelection year for Obama, many will say that he can’t be beaten. Money is actually one of, if not the most, important factor in determining who will turn out successful. As of now Mitt Romney has raised a total of $86,631,381, in comparison to Obama who has raised a total of $191,671,860. Obama has not only doubled Romney’s number, but is also close to doubling his predicted vote.

With the help of Bush’s support, Romney could possibly sway all the swing voters and influence them that he is an accountable candidate. With the support of Bush’s followers he will have a greater opportunity to raise more money, giving him more of a shot of defeating Barack Obama, and become closer to him in his total earnings. With more money to spend he will have more advertisement options with more efficient techniques that will hopefully sway the undecided voters towards him if he would like to be president.

Categories: B2, Learning Tags: , , , ,

Money’s Influence on Elections

April 30, 2012 4 comments

Money’s influence on the election process has increased due to social media and the availability of advertisements for campaigning. In the 60’s it was common for a successful House candidate to spend less than 100,000, but by 2008, the average cost of winning a seat in the House topped 1.4 million. Buying advertisements has been the primary resource for spending money to reach out and influence voters, so the person with the most advertisements and the most successful ads, will have the greatest touch on the voters opinion.

In our work in government class we discussed the pros and cons of the influence of the money in politics. The amount of money being spent for each candidate increases every election with few exceptions. Most would say that the increasing influence of money is a great thing because it allows for more to be informed of the views of the politicians, but I would say it is a disadvantage.

Government has tried to control the raging flow of money in elections by limiting candidates to amounts of money they are allowed to spend. This isn’t such a bad idea because of the downsides of allowing the rich to spend as much they want to get their voiced opinions out to the public, giving the poor a lesser chance of winning power. If a rich man was allowed to spend all of his money, he would have access to more of the public and have more of an advantage over the poor man. Since the man with the less money has insufficient funds to spend on advertisements, he must work harder to have any voice at all in his efforts to campaign.

In the senate and house, the money plays a major role in who is elected or reelected. When an incumbent, someone running for reelection, is in the race for reelection, they have an an advantage in raising money for their campaign. The challengers raise about half the amount of money the incumbent did in total, and there are fewer incumbents then there are challengers. The trust built or lost in the incumbent’s influences the amount of money they are able to raise and if there is a sufficient amount of money raised then their reelection is pretty much guaranteed.

The 2008 Presidential election was predicted to be the “1-billion dollar election”. It was also thought to be the most expensive and longest election in American history. The candidate with the most money was guaranteed presidency. Barack Obama spent more than 747.8 million dollars in his campaigning, which happened to be 400 million dollars more than his leading competitor, John McCain. The reason for the vast amount of spending was because it was the first open seat in this generation, because of the state of the economy and the war in Iraq. The candidates that had no shot at presidency were the candidates with little money to spend in comparison to the leading competitors

%d bloggers like this: