The race for the White House is well and truly on in the 2012 Presidential elections. Campaigning has been going on for a while, and a plethora of different candidates have stepped up to the plate; several have definitely had to reconsider their positions and bow out already. But with most coming from ‘well off’ backgrounds, is it more a case of how much money they have to spend versus the quality of their manifestos?
The first real giveaway is the cost of running a campaign itself. This year some budgets are well into the tens of millions of dollars; this will inevitably have a knock on effect on the number of votes received. More money equals more advertising, which equals more votes (when compared to a candidate with a considerably smaller budget). Is this fair?
This is not a new trend however. Even the Kennedy’s were renowned for spending a shed load in the 60s to improve the chances of securing the presidency. Whether or not JFK was the best candidate could have been irrelevant (he was by the way) as money was really the deciding factor. While this is a very simplified point, it is still very relevant.
Advertising is hugely successful these days, and while the real decision lies with the American people, each campaign commercial will stick in the mind of every individual, for either positive or negative reasons. It need only be a single word or phrase, but the more people hear it, the more likely they are to remember the message and vote accordingly.
The bottom line is this- whoever is the victor in arguably one of the most heated and frenzied political elections the world over will be seriously well off in terms of finances. While some would argue that being ‘rich’ is almost a prerequisite (after all, how can one be comfortable controlling trillions of dollars if their own personal finances are modest?), the inescapable fact is that the Oval Office can definitely be bought.
Posted in: Politics
