The 2012 Presidential Election is being estimated to have cost around $6 billion (according to Center for Responsive Politics), making it not only the most expensive campaign in history, but $700 million more was spent than the previous election - which at the time was the most expensive. With Obama raising $934 million, compared to Romney's $881.8 million, posing the question, is American politics really a rich man's game? And to win do you just need to throw the most money at it? Not who has the most exciting policies.
With the concepts of super PAC's (political action committee's - who campaign for a candidate) and people donating money to the campaigns - for example James H. Simons, President of a hedge fund company, who donated $3.5 million to Obama. Or Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam who donated $10 million each. It raises the question of what they get out of donating? Do they believe in the candidate and their policies that much? Or are they expecting something else out of it? Do these donor's who give astronomical amounts of money to the candidate's expect policies to go their way, and helping hands from their friend the President when it comes to contracts etc. Is the President really running the country? Or do they candidate's sell their soul Faustian style, to these shadowy devils, and let them into the decision making process? After all if you gave that much money away, you would expect something in return right? Nothing's free in this world, as they say.
Interestingly, both Obama's and Romney's super PAC's spent the majority of the money raised on negative advertisements, flooding the air waves with the likes of...
Which are just two examples of millions of examples from over the years, including during the Party Primary stages of the campaign, suggesting that American Politics is based all around negativity and which candidate can put you off the other the most by turning up as much dirt and nasty words as possible. All the debates and rhetoric was just as negative and all you hear is the bad, never the good. Scarily this element is creeping into British politics more and more. For a nation that is supposed to be the defender of freedom and democracy, picking the so called "leader of the world" on a campaign based on name-calling is a frighting thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment