are you buying

  In listening to the political pundits on the news one thing becomes obvious, campaign funds win the race. The war chests were being discussed. One candidate has over a million while the other has only a hundred thousand or so. It was pointed out how unless the fund raising increases significantly that candidate stands zero chance of winning. If I didn't know better, I would think that elections are up to the highest bidder! It was certainly stressed that the one with the most money usually wins. 

  Now the big money comes from big donors. That would seem obvious enough, your twenty bucks or so doesn't go unnoticed, but certainly isn't a large influence. No, it's the big donors that get the attention. It is also well known that big donations expect something in return. Yeah, we all pretend like that isn't the case, everyone will deny that, but we all know it's true. It has always been true and will remain true. You are not going to change that. Despite all the talk, and some attempts at legislation, everyone having the same "war chest" is never going to happen. There will always be those that "raise" a great deal more support than others. Is it fair? 

 Not being intimately involved in politics and having any inside information about such things, I do wonder about that. I can only think that is the ability of a candidate to advertise, to get their name out there, that wins the race. I have to think it is like advertising in that regard, push the product, sell that product, and just gloss over anything negative about the product. Incumbents always have a great advantage. They seldom lose their seat. Doesn't seem to make much difference about their performance in that seat, they get to keep it. Statistically speaking, 98% of the time! That's an amazing stat.

 The big question for me would be where does that money go? Are they really spending a million dollars on advertising alone? I wonder, could it be that the campaign workers are profiting? What are the administrative costs of running a campaign? Are they similar to the costs that other non-profit organizations claim? The March of Dimes is an example of that. About 65 cents of every dollar goes to charity, the remainder goes to administrative costs. It is profitable to be charitable!   After the campaign is over where does the left over funds go?  The law states they must be used to pay off any campaign debts and/or related expenses. They cannot be kept for personal use. If the campaign is for an individual, and that's what they are, aren't all the debts and related expenses that person's responsibility? Seems personal to me. But not in the world of politics. It's use it or lose it. Or place it somewhere else that isn't yours, but you have control of. Perhaps on related expenses, like a rebate to the highest donors?

  I'm thinking it is profitable to be a large donor to a political campaign. The amount of profit would of course depend upon how large the office is. What is there to be gained and how important is that gain to you, or your business? Much is said about the lobbyists, how they are the ones influencing and buying votes. I agree that is their sole purpose, they don't hide that. I think the large corporation that donate thousands, or millions, to campaigns are doing exactly the same thing. It is an attempt to get "their" man in office. It's how politics work. It isn't the way we say that works, but it is the way that works. 

  I guess it all comes down to one thing, are you buying what they are selling? You will if you feel like it is a benefit to you in some fashion. It's human nature. No matter how much you may say to the contrary, that is the bottom line. I'm buying into my belief. Sometimes it isn't a very wise or informed investment, but I'm buying in. I hate it when the purchase doesn't satisfy. I really don't like it when the purchase is declined!