As Coloradans watch the parade of GOP presidential favorites du jour and await their turn to weigh in, now might be the time to ponder why each has risen and fallen. More to the point, it might be past time to analyze the role money specifically various sources of campaign funding plays in the success of a nominee.
Last summer, Newt Gingrichs campaign was in shambles. Few of his supporters joined his camp until he was the only viable not-Mitt remaining. His resurgence owes little to his own desirability as president and a lot to the idea that he, rather than Mitt Romney, has the best shot at unseating Barack Obama.
Romneys deep pockets have enabled him to bide his time while rivals peaked too soon, and he can probably outlast Gingrich, who is not on the Virginia primary ballot. A recent $5 million contribution by one individual helped Gingrich win Saturdays South Carolina primary. So, though, did Romneys serious miscalculations about what most concerns voters which those voters knew about partly because Gingrich could afford to bring Romneys weaknesses to the publics attention frequently.
The relationship of funding to success is cyclical. Candidates who say the right things garner contributions from people who agree. They then spend more to convince others to agree as well, and if they win primaries or caucuses this seasons goal more money will flow.
Theres nothing inherently wrong with a system that rewards winners. In a perfect system, the best would rise to the top. The current system, though, is skewed by two significant factors.
The first is campaign finance. Only a very few Americans can afford to make million-dollar campaign contributions; most others not only have far less money, they also have different needs. They may be corporate shareholders through their retirement funds, and they may be employed by corporations that make big contributions, but the ways in which they benefit from corporate clout often are outweighed by the ways they are disadvantaged by the policies that clout influences. Even in aggregate, the voice of individuals is disproportionately small because their contributions no longer drive elections.
Campaign funds buy a great deal of negative advertising, mostly crafted to inflame and alarm rather than inform. Although this years Republican field offered real diversity, the substantive differences between Romney and Gingrich as they relate to the actual power of a president are not huge. Furthermore, highlighting those differences can only fracture the GOP vote, so instead their respective campaigns are intent on inflicting damage.
So we talk about issues peripheral to governing. Gingrichs habit of entering a new relationship before ending the previous one is troubling, as was his campaign meltdown. Americans want a president who can stay the course. Romney pays a lower tax rate than Warren Buffetts secretary and he considers $374,000 in speaking fees not very much, while voters want a president who feels their pain or at least understands that a truly healthy economy is one that benefits workers as well as corporate shareholders. But does anyone know what these men really will do if elected? Which will be more faithful to voters wishes? Who will help the economy most?
The one with the best shot at winning is the one who can afford to keep attacking his opponent until the bitter end. Big-donor money makes the difference, in the choice of candidates, in the rules of engagement and in the vote tally.
Thats not the way it should be in these United States of America. The issues that matter to voters should shape the outcome. Its too bad those issues are not what the Romney and Gingrich campaigns are talking about.
