According to FEC data, major party congressional candidates who raised the most money won 92% of their primary races in 2006. Candidates who spent the most won 91% of the time. Winning candidates out-raised their opponents by a margin of 3.5-to-1, with the winners raising an average of $1.06 million and losers raising $304,000. This pattern held true for open seat races as well. The biggest fundraiser won 82% of the contests without an incumbent running for re-election in the district.
That same article also states:
Without personal wealth or the ability to raise large sums of money from well-heeled contributors, many aspiring officeholders are locked out of the process before the first vote is cast. Those voters who wish to express views that are not supported by wealthy donors are left without an outlet.
In that revolutionary general election of 2006 that was all about the war and the unpopular President and about big new ideas, the candidate who spent the most won in 93 percent of House races, and 2/3 of Senate races.* Even though those numbers were down from 2004, money was still more decisive than anything else. Finally, a title from a March 11, 2007 article in the Washington Post says it all about our auction . . . er . . . election system: “Money’s Going to Talk in 2008”.
*Incumbents Linked to Corruption Lose, But Money Still Wins http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2006/PostElection.11.8.asp
Money Talks For 2008 Indeed
Look at the current front-runners for President:
- Hillary Clinton is worth somewhere in the range of 20-40 Million Dollars and has raised well over 50 million. And she is one of the leading recipients of health care industry campaign money!! See CBS link above.
- Barack Obama has raised at least as much as Hillary and has become a multi-millionaire through book sales occurring primarily because he holds public office. (Not enough space to examine the frequent connection between getting elected and THEN getting rich and then getting elected to higher and higher positions and THEN getting REALLY rich.)
- John Edwards is a multi-millionaire who has raised multi-millions. He is the only Democrat really talking and acting like a true progressive in the Robert Kennedy mold. His main problem in keeping up with Clinton and Obama is SHORTAGE OF MONEY!!
- Rudi Giuliani is a multi-millionaire, corporate chamber-maid raising tens of millions dollars to use to hide the truth about him: he is nothing but a crass, selfish, corporate-chamber maid who shorted the New York fire-fighters and police the equipment they really needed on 911, then by some miracle managed to have freezing under pressure afterwards portrayed as being cool and tough and reassuring.
- “Goodhair” (luv ya Molly Ivins) Romney is a viable candidate solely because he is rich and can raise lots of money. Lest you argue he is viable because he was governor of Massachusetts, remember he got elected to that office mainly because he was rich and could raise a ton of money.
- “I’m not a leader, but I play one on TV” is viable solely because he is a wealthy celebrity and long-time corporate lobbyist shill who could raise barrels of cash if he ran. (Look, there are plenty of strong social conservatives with talent and credentials that make TV boy look like a bumpkin; he’s viable cuz’a money and its cousin celebrity.)
- John McCain, his recent sad pandering to the hard right and Republican party label notwithstanding, has the most admirable record of service to his country of anyone currently running, but he is considered toast today. The first word in most summations of his demise: “Broke”. He is running out of money, and therefore, out of chances. Six years in the Hanoi Hilton and a long, distinguished Senate career mean nothing without the $$$$$$$$$ behind you. Yes, his war stance is hurting him, but Giuliani and Romney (and Gingrich) are pro-war and still popular.
Bottom line
OK, I’ve gone on long enough. The bottom line follows.
Bill Clinton could be impeached because, despite his moderate economic conservatism reflected in welfare reduction and deregulation, he was considered a mild threat because he raised taxes, attempted universal health care and had a populist streak that could have borne fruit for the lower classes at the expense of the upper had he been able to sell that part of his vision undistracted by impeachment. In short, impeachment served the interests of great wealth.
George Bush is the elitist, capitalist, big corporate, gilded-age, Robber-Barron, uber-class’s wet dream. He really is. Everything he does that makes absolutely no sense at all to most people, makes perfect sense to great, vested wealth. Everything Bush does is designed to protect and enable that wealth and to allow it to grow and grow at any and all cost. Anyone who tries to end the wet dream will be treated quite nastily by this extremely powerful and ruthless class of people.
We cannot expect people like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerrey and the other multi-millionaires to rock the boat of unfettered capitalism that has been so good to them and their families for so long.
We can’t expect elected officials who are wholly dependent on donations from big corporations and wealthy individuals to take on the direct vested interests of those on whom their careers depend. John Edwards is perhaps an exception, if only because he got wealthy taking on big corporations as a trial lawyer on behalf of injured people and does not fear the corporations or believe his future is as tied to theirs as others apparently feel.
No, sadly, just like the 2004 Presidential election, the 2004 and 2006 Congressional elections, and just like run-up to the 2008 primaries are currently going, the most significant factor in impeachment of Bush and Cheney is MONEY.
MONEY says no, and we all know,
