In an earlier post I questioned how much money local candidates spent per vote in the 33rd SD and 71st AD primary races. Until we see the final 460’s, including the harder to track I.E.’s, that answer will need to wait.
In the mean time the New York Daily News just published the following on Hillary Clinton’s campaign that I share with Juice readers.
“Eighteen million votes: $212 million. Some 1,926 delegates: $109,823 a pop. Blowing the biggest head start in presidential history: priceless.
From anointed to also-ran, Hillary Clinton spent more money to lose a primary election than any candidate in Democratic Party history.
“The Clinton campaign found itself without adequate money at the beginning of 2008,” chief strategist Mark Penn wrote in a published Op-Ed yesterday – but it was enough of a cash stash to fund the causes she championed.
The money raised could have been better spent.
Instead of throwing it at a failed political bid, Clinton could have achieved a lot of her goals.
The former First Lady, an outspoken proponent of family values, might have delivered a much-needed vacation to working families: sending more than 76,000 families of four from New York to California to visit Mickey, Donald and Goofy.
And don’t forget the economy.
Instead of throwing cash away, she might have better invested the $11 million she gave her campaign by buying everyone in New York City a Mega Millions ticket.
And she could have bought 9,838 people a new hybrid Toyota Prius, or given out 70.7 million energy-efficient light bulbs. “
To read the entire report simply click on the following link.
Juice readers. Can a candidate running for president get their party nomination without having deep pockets of personal wealth or being connected to “special interests” that fund your campaigns?
And, if you do take special interest money, can you promote public policy that is free from any obligations to those same supporters?
Could you misogynists give it a rest already? Puhleeze! ~Ms M
Don’t worry Marselle, Larry (a Republican activist unlike Art) is equally anti-Obama. (And I don’t think he’s racist.)
I’m gonna go with the contrary position that maybe her campaign wasn’t such a waste of money – it energized and brought to the polls almost as many Democrats as Obama’s did, and even though some of them are bitching now, they will almost all be there to suport our Democrat nominee in November!
(Not to mention downticket – Debbie, Chau, Steve, Hedrick, Pritchard, the list goes on!)
Larry if running a frugal campaign is what you like, may I please have your endorsement? Since it did not rain two years ago, I have virtually all my yard signs in perfect condition ready to be used again. Frugal, green and pro social security privatization. You are not going to find a better candidate to endorse.
Marselle. You missed the key point of my post. It is not the story from the NY Daily News, it’s about my closing comments.
It is virtually impossible to run an effective campaign for high level elected office unless you are independently wealthy or are willing to accept campaign contributions from Special Interest groups.
Let me remind you of an Arkansas friend of the Clinton’s named “Charlie Trie” as found on the Internet as follows:
“The exploits of indefatigable Clinton bag man Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie produced the hit of the week at last week’s Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearings on campaign finance. Mr. Trie in early 1996 had temporarily shifted his attention from the president’s reelection campaign to his legal defense fund. He had showed up once with a brown envelope containing $460,000 in $1,000 contributions, some on sequentially numbered money orders made out in different names but the same handwriting.”
How about “Johnny Chung.” Here’s another Internet entry in case you forgot that headline:
“Chung made at least 49 visits to the White House, despite the fact that a National Security Council official concluded that he was a “hustler” seeking to exploit his friendship with the Clintons to impress Chinese business associates.
During one visit to the White House, he handed a $50,000 check to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief of staff, Margaret A. Williams.
Williams accepted the check and passed it along to the DNC, even though federal law bars government employees from accepting campaign contributions on government property.
From 1994 to 1996, Chung made 12 personal or corporate donations to the DNC totaling $366,000. The DNC returned all of the money last year, stating that it had “insufficient information” about its origins.”
Gilbert comment. While we may return all or part of these huge campaign contributions, you are easily tempted to accept all the tens of thousands of dollars given with no questions asked. Sure???????????
“You scratch my back today and I will remember you tomorrow!”
PS: While I have been inside the White House I have never slept in the Lincoln bedroom!
from the Smirking Chimp–
Back in the good old days — that is, before Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff were caught gaming the system — Republicans in Congress floated on mounds of corporate cash and casino booty. They were assured reelection through gerrymandering and other Mob-style tactics. But the pig trough from which they’ve fed just went lean. Rather than try to fix the mess they created, however, they’re going to bail and leave it up to someone else. The departing Republicans fully expect to be rewarded by their corporate masters with a cushy K Street office. Shadegg, in fact, was the target of an FCC probe over sleazy fundraising tactics, which only shows how eminently qualified he is to enter the private sector.
Sen. Trent Lott mirrored the moral, ethical and political bankruptcy of his party when he retired last December just days before a new law went into effect requiring Senators to wait two years before becoming lobbyists. In other words, so that he can line his pockets, Lott left Mississippi citizens on the hook for the expense of a special election (he still had four years left on his term). Lott was, is and always will be a rat and, in the long run, the American people are better off without those of his ilk in their most powerful legislative chamber. But too many others like him still remain.
Dan.
I totally agree with your comment that elected officals should not be employed as lobbyists for two years after leaving office. There are many examples from both major parties who have exploited their connections as they walk the hallowed hall of Congress schmoozing on behalf of multinational conglomerates.
While I cited two examples of the Clinton’s in my above comment, our side of the aisle is not immune to going over the line. The best local example being Republican Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham from the safe seat known as the 50th CD in the La Jolla area of SD. If you look at the map you will notice that both the 50th and 53rd are gerrymandered to protect each major party.
Let me not overlook retired Generals and Admirals who end up employed by major military contractors where they can open doors to get an audience with key decision makers on billion dollar Contracts.
Let me digress in spelling out that one advantage of “special interests” supporting victorious candidates is that you get access to them or their staff.
“Some people” loooove the sound of their own voice. ~M
Larry,
That was a cute NY Times article. Loved the tongue in cheek take on the TV Commercial. Very witty!
As to your questions
“Can a candidate running for president get their party nomination without having deep pockets of personal wealth or being connected to “special interests” that fund your campaigns?
And, if you do take special interest money, can you promote public policy that is free from any obligations to those same supporters?”
Is that a softball to the Obama campaign? Because the book “The Audacity of Hope” is all about that and all about how to make it happen. I don’t know who to compare it to so that you might get the flavor, the cleanliness of his writing. Yet he seems pretty down to earth for a lawyer.
Oh well, I can’t explain it, at least he’s not ranting on about how someone is immoral or unamerican and thankfully he doesn’t butcher the english language. Three for the plus column there.
anonyms. Hmm. Obama’s campaign contributions? Good point. As far as we have heard his “primary” election support was from small individual donors. Let’s see what lies ahead as he restocks his war chest for the next battle. As Hillary returns to her NY home I will refrain from commenting on “her” connections.
Marselle.
Please don’t beat around the bush with your oblique comments. This is a blog where readers can debate a wide variety of topics and author opinions without going through a filter or an editor who decides which ones end up on the blog.
Well carry on then. Didn’t mean to be obtuse.