The Best President Money Can Buy

[davidswanson]

I was invited to speak on a (foreign, of course) television show about the money that U.S. presidential candidates are accepting and how it affects them, so I took a look at the latest numbers on OpenSecrets.org. The television producers only wanted to discuss the three Democrats and three Republicans they called the "leading" candidates. Are these the leading candidates in the polls (which at this early stage cannot predict votes) or in fundraising (which is neither voting nor speech)? Well, here's the thing: you can't distinguish. The candidates' rankings in terms on money and polling are the same, at least for the Democrats. But here's the question: which is the chicken and which is the egg?

Does the super wealthy sliver of the American population that "contributes" the vast bulk of the money choose to fund candidates because they're ahead in the polls, or do the sort of people who are willing to answer questions from strangers who phone them during dinner tend to prefer the candidates who have the most money? No doubt, it's some of each, but I am certain it is more of the latter than the former. Candidates who raise more money get more media coverage, just as candidates who get more media coverage raise more money, and an amazing percentage of the coverage is simply about who has raised how much money. (And, of course, most of the money goes to television networks in the form of ad purchases. Progressives would be far better off funding the creation of an honest television network than contributing their bit to the common cesspool.) Television viewers are intensively and endlessly trained to be strategists rather than citizens. Few people give their support to the candidate they most agree with. Few even know which candidates they most agree with. (Several online polls that ask people their positions on issues and then match them up with candidates have come out with Dennis Kucinich in the lead). The factors that people base their choice on include more than money, but money is clearly a big part of it and a big part of determining who the media labels "viable."

Among the Republicans, here are the money leaders in terms of money raised: Mitt Romney $44 million, Rudy Giuliani $35 million, John McCain $25 million. Nobody else has raised $4 million. McCain has blown so much he doesn't have $4 million left. Romney has $12 million on hand, and Giuliani has $18 million. Fred Thompson entered the race the day and hour on which he could avoid reporting anything on his fundraising until the race is well underway. The polls show the rankings as Giuliani, then McCain, then Thompson. Romney is something of an aberration: he's got money but not polling.

Among the Democrats, Hillary Clinton has raised $63 million, Barack Obama $58 million, and John Edwards $23 million. Two others are over $10 million: Bill Richardson $13 million, and Chris Dodd $12 million. In terms of cash still on hand, they fall in the same order. Clinton has $45 million, Obama $36 million, Edwards $13 million, Richardson $7 million, and Dodd $6 million. The polls follow perfectly for the first three: Clinton, Obama, Edwards. But fourth and fifth in the polls are Al Gore (who's not even running) and Dennis Kucinich (who has only raised $1 million). Kucinich, at a low scale, almost off the radar, is an aberration: his polling ranks him higher than his fundraising.

How does all this cash impact candidates' positions on issues like war, health care, and trade?

OpenSecrets.org does not provide analysis of funding by war profiteers other than oil and gas companies and lobbyists. Oil and gas money recipients in order from biggest to smallest are: Giuliani, Romney, Clinton, McCain, Richardson, Obama. Lobbyists' favorite candidates in order are: Clinton, McCain, Dodd, Giuliani, Romney. This week Edwards' campaign sent out an Email ( http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/26928 ) criticizing Clinton for holding a $1,000 lunch for war industry lobbyists attended by Congressional Committee Chairs and Members on the committees related to their issues. Edwards didn't add that, while Bill may have been the cheater, Hillary turns out to be the pimp. Senator Clinton, who has also benefited from a fundraiser hosted by war-promoter Rupert Murdoch, is the most pro-war among the Democratic candidates. Obama comes next. Then Edwards. Richardson, despite his gas and oil money is more strongly for ending the occupation of Iraq and creating green energy than the others. The Republicans, other than Ron Paul, all back the war,

Edwards' money comes largely from hedge funds. He and the rest of the candidates in both parties, except for Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, opposes ending NAFTA or corporate health insurance. But he takes larger baby-steps toward single-payer health insurance than Clinton or Obama. Clinton accepts huge amounts of corporate PAC money and – as we've seen – lobbyist money. Hedge funds give to, in order: Romney, Giuliani, Dodd, Obama, Clinton, McCain, Edwards. Insurance companies give to: Dodd (who is from insurance-heavy Connecticut), Romney, Giuliani, Clinton, Obama, McCain, Richardson, Edwards. Pharmaceutical and health products companies give to: Romney, Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Dodd, McCain. And health professionals give to: Clinton, Romney, Obama, Giuliani, McCain, Edwards, Richardson.

How do we fix this? We might start by looking to Arizona and Maine's public financing examples. We might finish by reversing the ruling that money is speech. In the meantime, Clinton is the money leader and the poll leader and a tremendous influence on what the Democratic leadership does in Congress over the next year. Her influence is key to keeping the occupation of Iraq going (and the theory that this will help her next November) and also to holding off impeachment (which she reportedly fears would remind people of Monica Lewinsky). With impeachment effectively removed from the Constitution, and all that follows from that, it is safe to say at this point that Monica blew more than Bill.

[jsamuel]

1. Interresting post.

I notice that Edwards is at the end of every list which you give for how much money they get from those corporations.

[davidswanson]

7. that's because

i only listed the big recipients and left off the small fries

[truedelphi]

2. I'll quote from the piece:

"(Several online polls that ask people their positions on issues and then match them up with candidates have come out with Dennis Kucinich in the lead)."

Kucinich would lead in any country on earth where the populace was educated, informed and involved.

[fenriswolf]

3. goes to show you

that when all is said and done, if all candidates were given equal visablility dennis would clean their clocks www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

[benny05]

4. Other than Fortress

Who went public and the only hedge fund company to do so (which is good), I don't understand how Edwards got mainly from hedge fund companies. Moreover, your post says that he opposes ending NAFTA. You have no proof of that when he has said over and over he would not have supported NAFTA when it came for a vote. But he wasn't in the Senate at the time.

Edwards says the government system with influenced with so much lobbyist funds is rigged against US citizens. This post also is rigged with some inaccuracies to hit Edwards. Poor job, poster.

[davidswanson]

6. he's been asked

repeatedly if he would end NAFTA and said no, on televsion. Watch the AFL-CIO debate in Soldier Field. He says No, he will nto end NAFTA. He says it with Kucinich standing next to him promising to end NAFTA and receiving thunderous applause.

You're right, most of Edwards contributions don't come from hedge funds. A lot do. But most of his income comes from Fortress.

[jsamuel]

8. He said he would change it dramatically to the point to where it would have to be

renegotiated with other countries.

[benny05]

9. Mincing words again

JRE is no longer employed at Fortress, so he does not get most of his income from there. He may have gotten a significant portion of his income last year from it, but he also was paid on alumna donations by the UNC-CH Law School to run the poverty center.

JRE said he would fix NAFTA (and other agreements) to include labor and environmental provisions. He calls it fair trade (Clinton calls it smart trade, whatever that means). It's true that Dennis said he would end NAFTA, but in all sincerity, while I like Dennis, he has a snowball's chance in hades to get the nomination. Dennis was not even invited to the Harkin Steak Fry because he seldom campaigns in Iowa and thus not even considered as a serious contender. I counted 5 supporters out of 12,000 who even wore a Dennis sticker (such that they had the stickers around). Dennis tends to spend more time in California to obtain access to their ATM.

Dennis's campaign also took money from individuals from investment banks, so he's not exactly pure either. They all take donations from Wall Street workers, which hedge funds managers happens to fall under. Edwards is the sole candidate that said that hedge fund managers should pay more with taxes to invest what our citizens want, among them: health care for all.

I'm surprised the poster even gets a FP on this site.

[redqueen]

5. *sigh*

Kucinich, at a low scale, almost off the radar, is an aberration: his polling ranks him higher than his fundraising.

[ProudDad]

10. No kidding...

what a world :eyes:

[ProudDad]

11. Kick

Too late to recommend...alas

[illinoisprogressive]

12. I was stunned that Matthews called it like it was on the air about this pay to play scheme.