CBS News’ Bob Schieffer wonders in a Sunday blog post about the merits of a presidential election that will likely cost $2 billion.
While remaining technically indifferent (Schieffer mostly just asks questions), Schieffer’s tone implies that he believes money plays too large a role in modern campaigns.
"Money has always been a big part of politics but it has become the overriding factor now. Raise the money, then you have a chance to get elected; without it, forget it," Schieffer wrote.
But is $2 billion really too much to spend on electing the president?
Consider that in 2006 Proctor & Gamble spent $4.9 billion advertising their soap, toothpaste, razors, and other goods. Surely, an amount that is less than half of what P&G spent advertising consumer goods is not too much to spend on advertising that will help determine who becomes President of the United States.
The New York Sun recognized "The Bargain of Democracy" in an editorial last year that addressed the possibility of a $5 billion election.
"The billions in projected spending may correspond to a scant $17 for every American, or about $8.50 a year, less than a movie and about the same as two venti peppermint mochas at Starbucks," the Sun wrote.
"At $5 billion, democracy is a bargain… Americans have personal consumption of nearly $9.8 trillion annually, or nearly $20 trillion in a two-year political cycle. To spend $2.5 billion on political campaigns is much less than 3 one hundredths of one percent of total expenditures. We spend far more on potato chips…The wonder of this campaign season is not how much political campaigns spend but rather how little they spend."
As CCP has mentioned before, "the increased spending, though, really just means more opportunities for candidates to communicate directly with voters in an effort to advance their campaign – a fact that Democratic consultants Steve Elmendorf and Joe Trippi readily acknowledge."
Schieffer adds that "the air has gone out of campaign finance reform. When voters are going through tough times like now, they don’t have time to worry about who is giving what to politicians."
It is unclear what Schieffer means by this statement or how he knows what voters are worrying about (did voters not employed by the New York Times editorial board or Democracy21 EVER spend much time worrying about who is contributing to candidates?).
Moreover, one should note that campaign finance restrictions no impact on the competency of government. In fact, a report card grading the 50 states on the competence of their government by the Pew Center on the States found that states with virtually no campaign finance restrictions – like Utah and Virginia – were among the best governed states in the nation. Perhaps, what is needed is more speech and less regulation.
The truth is that democracy, even at the cost of $2 billion, is a bargain.
