President Bush is a busy man. He's capturing Saddam, chasing Osama, raising terror alerts and attending countless diplomatic meetings. He's talking to senators and governors about state budget problems, discussing North Korea's nuclear program with Colin Powell and dining with the Brits. Oh, and there's one more thing he's a little preoccupied with: breaking campaign fundraising records.
Bush begins the election year with $99 million in the bank, but that is only a fraction of what he plans to raise. His campaign goal is to raise a total of $150 million to $170 million, according to yesterday's New York Times.
While I support the idea of donating to campaign funds, and I fully encourage the democratic process, I am struggling with these huge numbers. I can't help but think of our country's lack of adequate healthcare and education funding.
I consider that my uncle, a teacher in Michigan, said some school districts in his state are laying off teachers mid-year due to budget problems. The students in the classes then are divided into other classes, crowding rooms and putting a strain on the other teachers.
I don't see Bush as the only bad guy in this situation. He is doing what every politician tries to do. Howard Dean, the leading Democratic candidate, has raised $40 million for his own campaign. Sen. John Kerry has raised about $29 million - $6.5 million of which is his own money. I think even Dennis Kucinich - the most socially-conscious Democratic candidate and someone I think could truly be called a champion of the little people (no pun intended) - would be proud to raise that much money for his own campaign.
Democrats are spending their money quickly, trying desperately to crawl a little bit on the polls and eventually win the party nomination. And I am sure the Bush campaign funds will be used for massive television and radio advertisements, Internet sites and trips to kiss babies and speak gibberish to large groups of people. The money will be used in some way or another, not left sitting useless. I would just have a very heavy conscience if I had donated to a campaign, thinking about the books that could have been bought, the teachers that could have been hired or the health care that might have been paid for.
Campaign money isn't, for the most part, government funding. In many cases, it comes from ordinary citizens, people who happen to think that a particular candidate is worthy of their money. People believe that if their candidate wins, the country will become a better place - for them, and sometimes for other people. Kerry obviously thinks he will make the country a better place - for himself and others - if he wins the election. He truly is putting his money where his mouth is. But if you have enough money to give to a candidate, why not give it to help make someone else's life better? I could think of hundreds of groups to appeal to different interests. There are countless community organizations - women's shelters, soup kitchens, mentoring groups, Little League teams - that could benefit from a donation.
I think people should be allowed to do what they want with their own money. It is difficult to legislate campaign-financing policy because it is so difficult to tell people that the government wants to control their money. And I understand people have some very specific motivations for donating to candidates. Corporate bosses and hard-line Republicans probably do have good reason to want Bush for president. And I doubt they'll be swayed by the idea of donating to charity instead of to Bush. But I can try
editor. Send her an e-mail at suzanne.wilder@ohiou.edu
17 Archives
Suzanne Wilder
