http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-03-21/super-donors-GOP-race/53686982/1
According to the USA today, "big-buck donations" are fueling a heated debate regarding this year's political race for the coveted GOP nomination. Reportedly, $16 million is being pumped into Newt Gingrich's campaign from the "Winning Our Future" super PAC, and this amount represents 96% of his total funding. Similarly, Mitt Romney is receiving over half (52%) of his campaign funding from the Restore Our Future super PAC. A wealthy Wyoming investor, Foster Friess has donated $1.6 million to the Santorum campaign, which is mainly supported by a multitude of "super-donors." Apparently, all major candidates have a large amount of campaign funding coming from individual investors or super PACs, but the question remains as to how exactly this affects their ability to effectively compete for the official GOP nomination.
Personally, I think that this spending is out of control. First, I cannot believe that individuals would spend that much money on a single candidate's campaign. The amounts alone blow me away, and the money could definitely be used for bettering America or the world as a whole by providing food, clothing, or shelter to those in need. Also, single individuals having that large of an impact on America's Presidential race worries me because those donating have to have a personal agenda behind their funding a candidate, and this could affect how that candidate will perform as our next President. When all is said and done, a President should be elected based on his political ideals and ability to lead, not how rich his friends are.
I agree with your opinion on the SuperPAC status. If I were a millionaire, I definitely would not waste my money on a candidate who most likely wouldn't win the nomination. Plus, these Political Action Committees do influence the race on a large scale. I think Gov. Romney is benefiting the most out of this business since he was a former CEO of a successful company and will know a lot of rich people who would willingly donate millions to "Restoring Our Future". So, this would mean that the candidate who adapts well to affluent citizens will eventually get the most money in campaign donations via SuperPAC. These should be ruled illegal somehow, someway and be abolished from future presidential elections.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with both Taylor and Austin. I don't like the idea that so much of the GOP and Presidential race is reliant upon money. I would almost support a limit as to the amount of money able to be spent in a campaign, because these numbers are borderline ridiculous, especially in a case like Newt Gingrich where he has a very small chance of winning, yet is still having virtually endless amounts of money being funneled into his campaign, which is basically the only reason he is still capable of running.
ReplyDeleteI know a great example of how easily SuperPACs can be exploited is from Steven Colbert creating a SuperPAC, and having him and Jon Stewart basically make a joke out of how easily they could manipulate the rules to get what they wanted out of the huge donations they were receiving. Like I said earlier, I feel like a limitation on the amount of money that is able to be spent in campaigns would get rid of a lot of these issues, although I'm not sure how likely that is to happen.