Campaign spending paybacks?
June 7, 2011
This thought popped into my head this morning: If Obama raised $650 million for his 2008 campaign and paid his contributors back with the multi - Billion dollar Stimulus bill, I dread to think what the payback will be if he raises $1 Billion for his re-election bid in 2012.
Just think about it, why would you contribute to a political campaign if you are a business or union (i.e. you are accountable for other peoples' money, be it investors' funds or union dues)? The most obvious reason is that you want, and expect, a return; if not you are in breach of your fiduciary duty. You're effectively taking a chance that your guy will get in and you'll get your money back, usually via some legislative advantage granted your organisation or a program that your business or union are key players in. In Obama's case, it is quite clear now (although we predicted it at the time) that the Stimulus plan was a useless plan of un-focussed spending that has singularly failed in improving employment or the economy. Instead of being a waste of money, I submit, it was in fact part of a plan to payback the corporate and union contributors to his campaign in various ways designed to obfuscate and confuse the public.
Just imagine what the payback for a $1 Billion campaign will be? There seems to be no effort at all to cut spending in this administration, and the thought of another 4 years of the same, with increased pressure from an extravagant election campaign, is more than this country can tolerate. Surely there should be limits on spending during such campaigns?
