John Whitehead's Commentary
The Three Billion Dollar Race for Political Office
Observers of the 1996 race had marveled--or cringed, depending on your perspective--at the huge amounts of cash spent on various races. But according to The Washington Post, the 2000 campaign outpaced 1996 by nearly 50 percent. In just the presidential election, from June 1 to October 24, the two campaigns--along with their respective parties--spent $125 million on television advertising alone.
There were some notable standouts in this cash-filthy year. Governor Bush became the first presidential candidate to forgo federal matching funds in order to avoid any cap on his fundraising. In the New Jersey Senate race, Democrat Jon Corzine poured $57 million of his own money into his bid for the seat. By comparison, in 1998, the top total raised for a Senate race was a paltry $16 million.
In terms of real politics, what did this flurry of funds signify? Not much, I'm afraid.
First, there were very minor differences between the two presidential candidates. One proposed a large tax cut; the other proposed a huge tax cut. One supported the death penalty; the other supported the death penalty. One was supported by large accounting firms; the other was supported by large investment banking firms. Even proposals that suggested a clear difference, such as plans for Social Security investment and public funding of private education, would likely be watered down by a Congress controlled by moderates from both parties. The differences certainly weren't worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
What about the one issue that at first seemed likely to define the election: the nomination of Supreme Court Justices? Recently, some commentators have suggested that it's possible we could go another four years without the retirement of a single justice, especially if Justice Stevens' health holds up.
In private, many law school professors aren't sure that it would make a major difference, even if one or two Justices were to retire. Landmark cases such as Roe v. Wade would probably survive. And more technical questions, such as stricter interpretation of the Commerce Clause, make for better law review articles than practical consequences. It seems highly unlikely that any amount of money could buy even one Supreme Court decision.
But the baseline question we have to ask about the out-of-control spending in this election year is, what does this say about our priorities as a country? Think for a moment about what $3 billion could do for the homeless people on the streets. What could $57 million do for a battered women's shelter? Or $125 million to research cures for diseases such as cancer and AIDS?
And what of the many church congregations around the country that closely identified with a political party? It appears difficult to harmonize with spending hundreds of millions of dollars on any election when pure religion's mandate is to care for the fatherless and widows and keep oneself uncorrupted from the world.
As the campaign drew to a close, I couldn't help but think of all the glitz and glitter in terms of a big-budget Hollywood spectacle--Al Gore and George Bush: the Movie. And I wished instead that they had turned it into a charity event.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
