Should Running for President be Reliant on Money?
Trinh Vo
With the recent Democratic debates and the election heating up, there are only 5 candidates left for the democrats. There are many reasons for dropping out of the running for president, but there have been many candidates who’ve dropped out of the race partially due to a lack of funding. Many of us are getting close to the age where we can vote. Thus, it’s important to delve deeper into what it takes to even consider running for president; more specifically, how much it takes to run, such as self-funding or depending on donors, to show how funding should not determine who wins or loses.
In the 2004 election, George W. Bush spent around $345 million to win the election. Within the 2016 campaign, Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump spent a combined $1.16 billion. This trend of setting records for most money spent on campaigns is a poor reflection of how winning the presidency works. This begs the question should campaigning be so reliant on the money? And is there a disadvantage to those who are more reliant on donations rather than self-funding? Or is funding a reflection of the candidate’s progress and popularity?
While the majority of candidates are very reliant on donors, some are more than others. Within the 2016 election, Donald Trump self-funded the majority of his campaign meaning he used personal funds like portions of his income, trusts, or investment in stocks and more. This allowed him the ability to last a lot longer in the running than anyone expected of him and eventually led to his win as president. Similarly, in the current 2020 election, Michael Bloomberg is known to completely self fund his campaign and not accept contributions from outside donors which has helped him remain in the running despite not winning in various polls. In contrast, many candidates are more reliant on donors to fund their campaigns. For example, Kamala Harris was very reliant on donors but also dropped out of the election race due to a lack of funding despite her qualifications for presidency. Thus showing how dependent on money the electoral race is currently and how the money doesn’t accurately represent the candidate.
There are many pros and cons of self-funding verses donors for a campaign. For example, self-funding makes it easier to advertise more and stay ahead of other candidates, in terms of resources available to them, and stay in the running longer. The production possibility curve is greater on the side of self-funding because it gives the candidate more freedom in advertising and where the funding is allocated instead of being more focused on abiding by the ideas of big donors. But the opportunity cost of self-funding a campaign is that if the candidate does not win, it is a bigger loss for them due to the amount of personal resources invested in their campaign. Similarly, self-funding doesn’t accurately reflect the current polls for each candidate. For example, Bloomberg has the most funding, but has not led in any polls. Whereas, Amy Klobuchar, a candidate who is more dependent on donors, after doing well in the Iowa caucus, rose in polls and gained more funding from donors that reflected her rise. Thus showing that while funding may be what staying in the race relies on, it doesn’t represent the candidates to the best extent.
Thus, as more candidates drop out of the running and as many of us get closer to voting age, think about how much goes into running for president. While it may seem like one candidate is significantly better because of how long they’ve stayed in the race and how much money they have, that may not be the case. So as we debate who we will get to vote for, maybe let’s look a little deeper into how they’ve got to where they are.
Works Cited
“The 2019 Presidential Campaign Dropouts, Ranked.” POLITICO, www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/26/2020-presidential-campaign-dropouts-ranked-089675.
“2020 Presidential Race.” OpenSecrets, www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race.
“Democratic Drop-Outs Spent at Least $74M Pursuing Unsuccessful 2020 Bids.” OpenSecrets News, 20 Dec. 2019, www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/12/2020-democratic-drop-outs-spent-74m/.
Epstein, Reid J., and Trip Gabriel. “Pete Buttigieg to Quit Democratic Presidential Race.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Mar. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-drops-out.html.
Graham, David A. “The 2020 U.S. Presidential Race: A Cheat Sheet.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 12 Feb. 2020, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/2020-candidates-president-guide/582598/.
Investopedia. “How Much Does It Cost to Become President?” Investopedia, Investopedia, 10 Feb. 2020, www.investopedia.com/insights/cost-of-becoming-president/.
McMinn, Sean, and Alyson Hurt. “Tracking The Money Race Behind The Presidential Campaign.” NPR, NPR, 21 Feb. 2020, www.npr.org/2019/04/16/711812314/tracking-the-money-race-behind-the-presidential-campaign.
Overby, Peter. “Every Position Donald Trump Has Taken On How He Is Funding His Campaign.” NPR, NPR, 14 July 2016, www.npr.org/2016/07/14/485699964/every-position-donald-trump-has-taken-on-how-he-is-funding-his-campaign.
Panetta, Grace. “Here's Everything We Know about the Net Worth and Personal Finances of Each 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 29 Feb. 2020, www.businessinsider.com/estimated-net-worth-wealth-2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-2019-4.
Summers, Juana. “Bloomberg Has Already Spent $450 Million On Ads Since Launching His Campaign.” NPR, NPR, 21 Feb. 2020, www.npr.org/2020/02/21/808163144/bloomberg-has-already-spent-450-million-on-ads-since-launching-his-campaign.
“Using the Personal Funds of the Candidate.” FEC.gov, www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/using-personal-funds-candidate/.
If you get some positive momentum it makes funding more easier.
ReplyDeleteIf money didn't play any factor on the elections do you think the outcomes of the election will be a lot different?
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to read this article and find out more about our running candidates. Also to learn about how dependent they are on money to run their campaign. Although I do believe that if candidates were more uplifting and energetic that those specific candidates would have greater chance at getting the funding they need.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting topic to choose especially since it’s about time we got a new president. It is really important for us to know what to think about and how to vote for presidents and you gave us a great start. Looking at the funding of the presidents and how they got to where they are is very important. It is a great place to start while looking at presidents if they’re self funded or not. Even though that shouldn’t be the only thing we look at it is still important to see how they are as people. Also, it is pretty crazy to see how much money they spend on their campaigns. Getting into $1.16 billion is really a lot of money. Since this trend of money spending is going up how much money do you think will be spent this year? Would this be a good showing of how the presidents act during times of need?
ReplyDeleteI believe that candidates should rely on donations more, allowing candidates people are more interested in to make it the later stages of the election process. Instead of who has the biggest wallet, it should be who has the most supporters. I liked the example you used, of Amy Klobuchar who was used as an example to shine light on relying more on donations and fundraising, demonstrating how self funding isn't as much of a necessity as it may seem. Especially with money spend on candidates like Mike Bloomberg and the 2016 election candidates. Although, with a lack of self funding I can the possibility of donors perhaps influencing candidates to promote an agenda. You also stated that Mike Bloomberg's total self funding allows him the ability to deny contributions to show the public he isn't being influenced by external forces. Perhaps the fragile balance we currently have is what we need to keep our elections as free as possible.
ReplyDeleteThis blog was very thought provoking, I don't think it is correct that the presidential race can become a battle to has more money. The person who is the best candidate should be the one who wins the election not the richer candidate. But on the other hand is there examples of candidates who spent millions of dollars but still had to drop out for example mike bloomberg had to drop out after spending 500 million dollars on ads.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't think the presidential election should be 100% reliant on money, however, it is hard to succeed without the extra boost of money allowing you to stand out. Trumps reputation before he was elected was respected due to this drive for success and determination. After years of saving money, taking our stocks, and investing various ways, it is hard to say that without money, he would still be there. -Ellie Adams
ReplyDeleteIt seems that although the funding does have something of an impact, it doesn't directly relate to the outcome of the election. The number of donors and the amount of money received from them is reliant on many factors of a candidates campaign. Obviously, if a donor agrees with the candidate's politics then they are more likely to donate. The case is similar when it comes to self-funding. For example, if Donald Trump was making no ground and not winning out over the other candidates in the predictions during his campaign, he would realized that sinking all his money into the campaign isn't worth the investment. We saw this recently with Bloomberg, as he just dropped out because he wasn't winning in any predictions. If the less-liked candidates don't drop out, it is still unlikely that they win the election. I believe that campaign funding has very little impact on the result of the election.
ReplyDeleteLooking at your post on presidential candidates, I think that funding for the campaign should weigh less of a factor for their win. Using one of your examples, Donald Trump combined with Hillary Clinton spent $1.6 billion. Especially with Trump using most of his own personal money, the election should be about the traits and quality of the candidate and not the amount of money they have. Elections are relying too much on the wealth of the candidate that many are dropping out. The people dropping out such as Kamala Harris, had outstanding qualifications but not the funding. The presidents in the past could be different if we didn’t pay as much attention to funding.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding how a candidate runs for a presidential campaign is incredibly crucial to being an educated voter, something many high school students who are of the voting age may not even consider. If we want to genuinely induce change in our governmental system and country, it beings with educated and high turn-out voting, and the first step is raising awareness of how an election works and the truths behind every candidate, including how they receive funding and how they are spending the money.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't believe that the presidential election should be reliant on money as it doesn't directly impact the result of the election. However, it does impact who the voters can vote for because it gives candidates the chance to standout in the election with more money, as you can pay for more advertising, etc. But, there are candidates that still have millions of dollars and still drop out of the race for the presidency.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really interesting read! I don't believe this election should be all about money because it is not the only important thing to focus on. It's interesting to see how dependent the candidates on our on money when it comes to their campaign. But how different would these elections and campaigns be if money wasn't such a large factor?
ReplyDeleteEspecially since one candidate alone for the 2020 election (Mike Bloomberg) managed to spend over 400,000,000 dollars, this topic is super relevant to today's political and economic climate. While some may argue it is a person's given right to pay for their campaign, many others would argue it puts certain candidates that have more money in the lime light. Even though richer candidate's policies might not be as supported as others who have less monetary supply, it is certain that both sides have valid concerns. Your piece did a wonderful job at addressing these.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that something such as running for president, which is supposed to be solely determined by the support of the people, is so dependant on the amount of money that a candidate puts in. I think that it should be a process that is entirely independent from money in order to stay true to what democracy was meant to be. Although, I do think that to some extent the amount of funding can reflect the amount of support for a candidate, and it is a way for the American people to have a say in the election. The only issue is that self funded candidates don't represent the support from the American people in the way that campaigns funded through donors do.
ReplyDeleteI really like this piece. I don't think that people realize how much money it costs to run for President. In a way, the drastic amounts it costs to run prevents most from continuing a campaign. Consequently, if you think about it, this could severely limit the Presidential pool to only individuals with money before the campaign. A presidential candidate should be the best fit and the best representation of what the American people want, not just someone who has deep enough pockets to continue the longevity of their presidential run. You did a great job of addressing this problem in your piece.
ReplyDeleteAs reported by Stanford Medical, It's indeed the SINGLE reason women in this country live 10 years more and weigh an average of 19 kilos lighter than we do.
ReplyDelete(And really, it has NOTHING to do with genetics or some hard exercise and absolutely EVERYTHING about "how" they are eating.)
P.S, What I said is "HOW", and not "what"...
Tap this link to uncover if this short quiz can help you find out your true weight loss potential
Finally a unique article, really enjoyed reading this one. This topic is either blogged less or not at all as I have not read any article on this topic on this blog before. You really hit the spot for the 2 major ways of funding, self funding and getting big donors, but you forgot about campaigns that rely on only small donations. Campaigns such as Bernie Sanders', who only rely on small donations from individuals instead of companies or billionaires. This still allows the candidate to preserve their integrity by not being bought out by billionaires, without being a billionaire themselves. As constructive criticism, I believe that you could have discussed about other campaign types. i want to reemphasize that the article you currently have is still amazing.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great, great, GREAT post. This points out some of the major flaws in our system, and it seems to me, most of the flaws stem from greed in the first place. $1.16 billion dollars could have been put towards the hungry, the homeless, and the sick people in our country, but instead, we have allowed for a system that rewards the power and money hungry folk in our country. You bring up a great point- Kamala Harris could have still been in the running, but money was her downfall. The fact that this system turns away capable potential presidents for the sole reason that their bank accounts aren't fat enough just shows how flawed our selection pool is to begin with. Don't we want a president that can relate to us and our struggles, a president who sees the issues on a face-to-face basis and has the passion to fix the issues that most lower to middle classes deal with? How can we possibly expect our president to care about us if they can't even see us over the giant wad of $100 bills they have clouding their vision? This is a great post, and I mean it. You got me all fired up with nowhere to go!!!
ReplyDelete