In the upcoming presidential election, whoever has more money has the upper hand in winning. Obama is leading with 32.8 million for the Democrats with Hilary Clinton with 32.6 million. For the Republicans, Giuliani raised about 17.3 million. But in order to win the election, candidates need to spend money to advertise and fund their travel around the nation. Obama spent 16 million, Clinton spent 12 million and Giuliani spent 11 million. Other candidates are losing money even quicker. Thompson is in debt $6,000 and Huckabee only has 435,000 left. They are all spending this much money 6 months before the polls.
I realize there needs to be a lot of money in order to run a successful campaign, but money shouldn't be a factor in smaller candidates voicing their opinions. "It's unfortunate in our system that money can drive credible voices out of the race" said Crawford. There probably isn't a way to cut down the cost, but all candidates should have an equal chance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I agree that money shouldn't be the factor that stops a candidate from voicing his/her opinion, although this seems to be the reality. I guess whoever has the most fund will have advantage by having the best chance to voice their opinion.
I agree with your opinion that money should not be the factor in running a successful campaign and that candidates should all have fair advantages. However, candidates may benefit from this situation and use certain qualities that they contain in order to raise money for their campaign. That way, we as citizens, may be able to see their capabilities and have a better idea of whom we would want to be our next President.
I too agree that oney should not be a factor in running a campaign. More money goes in to these campaigns than what they recieve. It is unfortunate to see how much money is spent on these campaigns, rather than people in need.
I don't like the fact how money is always controlling everything. Even in political elections. Money should not reflect on the qualification of being a candidate as a president. However, some may argue that if one is capable of fundraising that much money uncomparable to the other candidates, then that candidate deserves the nomination.
THATS OBSURD!Money shouldn't decide whether or not who wins. Its the person and the qualities and the qualifications a person has that decides who wins. They have an advantage and an unfair one but again money shouldn't decide the outcome of this election. And remember, "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings."
i agree with optimus prime.. i mean what about the smaller partied candidates what are they going to do about money? everyones opinions are just as important as another and money should not be a factor.. seriously why do u need like a hundred million to do a campaign anyways?! "I'm Ready! for the 2008 Election"
Even in deciding the president, money is involved and affects the whole system; whoever has the most money has the highest chance of winning the election, since the candidates can publish their beliefs in the issues far more widely than the others.
I agree with you and believe that money should not determine whether or not smaller candidates can voice their opinion. Everyone is given the right to speech and it not only shows etiquette to listen, but it is important in society. However i do belive that our society today is turning money into a measuring to stick to determine how much credibility a person may have
Money should not decide who is going to win the election. But I also think that candidates such Obama and Clinton who have lots of fund , they are also qualified as the presidential candidates.
I agree as well. It is required for a candidate to have some sort of money but it's unfair how a rich candidate has an advantage over the others. WIth money, candidates can get so much votes due to their crazy campaigning and advertising. Yet there may be a candidate that has the greater qualities but he or she is not able to be heard by the people because he or she has less money. Money has so much power over elections, but it really should not.
I believe money is prohibiting poorer candidates from expressing their views to the public and earning more votes. This gives richer people an unfair advantage because they have more resources to spread their ideas and influence to the public.
Post a Comment